Sitting of 19 November 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with:
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session:
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 26 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Urban Land (Development)
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the amount of new development taking place on derelict or underused urban land (a) currently and (b) in 1991. [3116]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): In 1985, 38 per cent. of land for new housing came from land previously used for urban development. Since then, we have moved close to the Government's 50 per cent. target. I am now looking at whether that target could be higher.
    Mr. Smith: That is very welcome news, but given the natural and understandable propensity of developers to develop on green-field sites and the obvious benefit to the green belt and the countryside of developing underused urban land, will my right hon. Friend continue to give this very useful programme a very high priority?
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, certainly. I have committed myself to defending the green belt and believe that the present footprint is what ought to be developed first.
    Mr. Betts: Is not the use to which underused and derelict land is put important and should it not be in line with Government guidance? Perhaps the Secretary of State is aware of the correspondence that I have had with the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency about a planning application for a 20-screen cinema complex in Broughton lane in my constituency. The application was bungled by the development corporation and there was a lack of decision by Ministers. As a result, an application for nine screens became one for 20 screens without any proper debate. As if that was not bad enough, by the time this business is finished, there will be more than 50 cinema screens in my constituency, which is far too many and clearly has a deleterious impact on Sheffield city centre. Does the Secretary of State accept that planning guidance should not be about warm words but about practical action? The development corporation's decision did not follow the guidance. The application will have a deleterious impact on the city centre and is not a proper use of the derelict land in question.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to comment on such a particular question. I am very pleased that Sheffield, with its development corporation, is now so attractive a place for people to invest in—which was not true when he was leading Sheffield city council.

    Town Centre Managers
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many town centre managers are now in place; and how many there were five years ago. [3117]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): There are now more than 180 town centre managers in the UK, compared with fewer than 20 in 1991.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the post of town centre manager in Eastbourne was established in 1992 and that the present incumbent is Elliott Cairnes? The post forms a genuine partnership between the borough council and leading local retailers. It has had a broad measure of success in boosting the status of Eastbourne as a major regional shopping centre, as well as resisting the effects of out-of-town shopping development.
    Mr. Jones: I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in saying what a good job is being done by all those involved in the Eastbourne town centre initiative. Eastbourne is a very attractive place and should be successful. It can be so only through partnerships of the nature described by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Vaz: May I congratulate the Minister on adopting the policies on town centre issues that the Opposition have espoused over the past 10 years. It is a welcome conversion to common sense. I remind him that Labour councils, with their partners in the private sector, have been the ones to work hard to develop so many new initiatives on town centre management—without any help from the Government, him or the Secretary of State. Can the Minister point to one new policy—just one—that, if implemented, will directly assist town centre management, or is he just going to repeat some more political plagiarism?
    Mr. Jones: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was hobbling when he came into the Chamber—that is the trouble with trying to keep one foot in each camp. The hon. Gentleman has been trying to tell the supermarket developers that the Labour party would relax our policy, and to tell consumers that it would protect them. He cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that too many town centres are being destroyed by unnecessary parking restrictions? Will he advise local authorities such as Barnet to get their finger out and do something about it?
    Mr. Jones: Parking is a critical issue for reinforcing the attractiveness of town centres, and local authorities should look carefully at their policies to see whether they are putting people off coming to take advantage of the retail or leisure opportunities in their town centres.

    Global Warming
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his estimate of global warming for the next five years. [3118]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): We are working on the basis of an estimated global average temperature increase of between 0.1 and 0.2 deg C over the next decade.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that a number of reputable estimates suggest that, within the next five years
    820
    the average increase in global temperature will be 0.5 deg C above the 1951 to 1981 average and that, over the past 50 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 300 to 360 parts per million? That suggests a substantial increase in global temperatures and, therefore, all the attendant problems of global warming. Given the conflicting evidence available to the Government, will the Minister, first, put more money into research into global warming, its causes and the likely crop effects and, secondly, do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from this country and do his best worldwide to ensure that the agreements reached in Rio and other places are adhered to, so that we do not go into the next century with a significantly higher temperature than is already predicted?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will know that the estimates to which I referred are supported by the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Hadley centre. It is important for us to work on the basis of the best scientific advice, which in this case is also accepted by other developed countries that have signed up to the climate change convention. As the hon. Gentleman may also know, since we signed up to that convention, we have gone a long way towards achieving our commitment, unlike many other countries.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that among the authorities that he takes note of are organisations such as NASA, which points out that the influence of sun spots, with the influence of volcanic activity, have more effect on global warming but that we can do nothing about them? Does he also agree that the amount of attention we pay to CO2 emissions, which have a deleterious effect on industry, is possibly out of all proportion to their importance?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. She should be aware of the many serious implications that would follow global warming in the long term, including the effect it would have on particular regions and on sea level. It is important for us to address those implications, and we are. My hon. Friend should also be aware, as should the Labour party, that unlike many other developed economies, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada and most of the European Union, this country is on course to comply with the targets it agreed in the climate change convention. We are now setting challenging targets for the future to protect our climate.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister accept that road traffic increase is bound to be one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions? Does he agree that it needs urgent attention and that the Government could take the lead by setting targets within a strategy for road traffic reduction? Will the Government indicate whether they will support the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill, which will shortly be introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)?
    Mr. Clappison: Our policies address the question of CO2 emissions from road traffic, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increases in road fuel duties. It is important to bear in mind the overall target for greenhouse gas emissions. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we

    821
    signed up to the convention with other developed countries and it is important that we should have an objective and comprehensible target so that we are able to judge our progress and that of other countries. The hon. Gentleman will note that our progress is very good compared with that of many other countries.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to improve the energy efficiency of housing. [3119]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government operate and support a wide range of programmes and initiatives to improve and promote energy efficiency across all sectors of housing. We will continue to pursue them vigorously.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend and the Department have a good record in energy efficiency in housing. Will he confirm that more than a quarter of the energy use in this country is domestic usage? Will he therefore consider a further tightening of the building regulations with regard to new housing so that new homes use less energy and are among the most energy efficient in the world?
    Mr. Jones: If one adds to the energy used in the home for heating and lighting the energy used by machinery within the home and in the generation of electricity, domestic usage accounts for about half of greenhouse gas emissions, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight that point. Yes, we can do a lot with new housing, but the vast majority of housing is older housing, and we must persuade the owners and renters of it to be less complacent about energy use.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the Minister's comments, with which I entirely agree, does he recall that, in March, the Government came within one vote of being defeated—on a proposal to reduce the level of VAT on energy-reducing materials to that on energy, to encourage precisely the work that he suggests? Has the Department of the Environment made representations to the Treasury to make that reduction in the coming Budget? We were told during the debate in March that the Department would consider such a proposal.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in any regard, but he can be certain that we shall continue our programmes to encourage the extension of energy efficiency equipment and measures in homes.
    Mr. Evennett: How seriously are local authorities taking their responsibilities in promoting home energy efficiency? Is there any more that my hon. Friend can do to encourage them to take more action?
    Mr. Jones: Many authorities are doing a good job in taking forward the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. I was fortunate to be able to present the prizes yesterday for the Home Energy Conservation Act programme, facilitated by the Energy Saving Trust with finance from
    822
    the Department. Other authorities must learn from the best, and that is why we will produce best practice guides as a result of our experience.
    Mr. Meacher: Before he preens himself about any improvements, will the Minister say when he will apologise for the Secretary of State's cutting of the funding of the home energy efficiency scheme by fully a third earlier this year, which knocked £31 million off home insulation grants for the poor and elderly? When will he realise that a nationwide home energy efficiency scheme—which we do not have—would save fuel, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, prevent cold-related illnesses and hypothermia and create up to 50,000 new jobs? If he and the Secretary of State do not have the imagination or the vision to introduce such a win, win, win scheme, I can tell him that we certainly will.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that £30 million was added to the home energy efficiency scheme in anticipation of the second stage of VAT, which was voted down by the House—at which point that £30 million fell. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends is that they want to get on to the pudding even though they have refused to eat their greens.

    Capital Challenge
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce which local authorities have been successful in their bids for funding under the pilot capital challenge scheme. [3121]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Before Christmas.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the key objectives of capital challenge is to assist in the regeneration of some of our historic towns while drawing in investment from the private sector and elsewhere to make that possible? With that in mind, will he give careful consideration to the excellent scheme proposed by High Peak borough council to assist in the regeneration of the historic Georgian and Victorian parts of Buxton to prepare them for the 21st century—a plan which surely deserves success under the excellent capital challenge scheme?
    Mr. Curry: I will give careful consideration to that scheme, as I shall all the schemes that have been proposed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right: our intention is to allow local authorities to nominate their own priorities so that the Government choose the authority's priority if it stands up well. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we have received some 326 bids, and that nearly two thirds of authorities that could bid have done so. He is quite right to say that there is significant leverage. Some £1.5 billion has been bid for, but that money will pull in some £1.2 billion from other public sources and £1.3 billion from the private sector. The scheme is working alongside public and private moneys to help the priorities nominated by local communities.

    Business Rates
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the application of non-domestic rates procedure to assist businesses in difficulties; and if he will make a statement [3123]
    Mr. Curry: Local authorities have the power to grant up to 100 per cent. relief to any business that suffers hardship. We will shortly commence a review of that provision, beginning with a detailed analysis of the way in which local authorities use it.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister will be aware that rates take a large percentage of small businesses' profits and that new businesses have difficulty starting up because of the rate element. Will he extend to urban areas the relief for post offices and shops that is being implemented in rural areas? Will he also consider the problems facing small garages and public houses, which suffer an injustice because their rates are assessed on turnover rather than profit? He knows perfectly well that local authorities cannot afford to give rebates to the extent that he has suggested because of the Government's standard spending assessment; it is for the Government to find resources to help those businesses out of difficulty. Will he accept that the responsibility is his? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are rural areas as defined in the Local Government and Rating Bill in metropolitan areas, so an area that meets the criteria will benefit from all the advantages that the Bill will bring. The local authority will have the discretion to grant relief up to 100 per cent. to pubs and other businesses, both as a hardship relief and if so doing would serve the interests of the community.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that rural petrol stations are a vital service and that thousands of them have closed in recent times, not least because of the business rate? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government receive the total income from the non-domestic rate, does he believe that the Government should be obliged statutorily to make provision for extra allocation to local authorities that give assistance to petrol stations in rural areas?
    Mr. Curry: Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to grant discretionary relief to garages if that is necessary in the interests of the community. If the garage serves as a general store, it will get the full relief, and 75 per cent. of all discretionary relief will be paid by the Exchequer.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the concept of discretionary relief, but the problem is that it may not be given. Should not a principle be established that, in development areas, businesses that have been hit should be re-rated immediately and we should not continue to extract from them money that they are not earning? I am thinking particularly of areas such as Sandy Row in my constituency where, for 20 years, through dithering in the Department, businesses have been hampered.
    Mr. Curry: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is always a great mistake to allow a long time to
    824
    pass without revaluation. After all, before the revaluation of 1990, there were 17 years without one, which led to an enormous number of appeals when it finally took place. It is important to keep the lists up to date; then, everybody knows where they are and the changes that take place have a greater chance of being widely accepted.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend remember a time when businesses in trouble removed roofs to avoid penal rates of local taxation imposed by the Labour party? When the economy started to improve, those factories were in no position to provide jobs, leaving civic leaders to whinge about the number of cinemas in their towns, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) did earlier.
    Mr. Curry: I do indeed remember those circumstances; there was a migration of business from some of the places that most needed the revenues, jobs and the income they bring. That is why the Government changed the business rating system to give businesses a chance even where local councils were not prepared to give them one.

    Sparsity Allowance
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many district councils qualify for a sparsity allowance in their standard spending assessment. [3124]
    Mr. Gummer: The SSA of every district council reflects sparsity, even where it has a significant urban population, so 14 per cent. of Bassetlaw's SSA comes to it because of sparsity factor.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sparsity allowance is essential for rural areas because of the extra costs of refuse collection and public transport, for example? When rural areas were Conservative controlled there was no danger of the allowance being abolished, but now the vast majority are controlled by Labour or the Liberals, is there not a great temptation for the Government to abolish it and use the cash for income tax cuts in next Tuesday's Budget? Will he assure us that that will not happen?
    Mr. Gummer: I would like the hon. Gentleman to have a word with the Labour-controlled London boroughs and others who have long pressed for the abolition of sparsity factor. He may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and I have made it clear that recent research broadly supports the present sparsity rules. I have not made a final decision, but I think that it is unlikely that I will want to move from the present system when the evidence shows that it should remain. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his Labour friends to stop bashing the countryside.
    Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend and I represent rural areas. Does he agree that many of our constituents in the countryside and in rural villages do not enjoy the level of services that people in towns and cities take for granted? Is not that why the Local Government and Rating Bill's measures to protect the small village

    825
    post office, general store, public house and garage are so popular with parish councils? Can we be sure that district councils will have sufficient sparsity factor in their standard spending assessments to be able to afford the much needed discretionary relief?
    Mr. Gummer: I remind my hon. Friend that 75 per cent. of that money will come from the Exchequer. I also remind him of the Bill's Second Reading, when Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen showed that they knew little—and cared less—about rural matters.

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on standard spending assessment. [3125]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have received a number of representations from local authorities and others on standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Pope: Is not it the case that if every council received the same support that Westminster council receives, most of them would be able to pay out rebates on the council tax and, in particular, if Hyndburn council received the same support as Westminster, it would be able to pay a rebate of £612 for every council tax payer in the borough? Does the hon. Gentleman understand the anger that this corrupt system causes?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if we went down that route, there would be another 14p on income tax. Perhaps he should examine some of his local authority's expenditure. I understand that it moved its school centre to the wrong location and so had to move it again—and then had to build a new building at a cost of £1.7 million.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: My hon. Friend will, like me, be an avid reader of the Local Government Chronicle. Does he remember the 5 January 1996 article in which the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) was quoted as saying that she does not promise to change the present system? Is not it an indictment that Labour is out of ideas and policy and is prepared to keep the existing system as it is?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He has taken one of the shots that we would have fired at a later date. He is right, and it is interesting to watch the scrabble of feet among the Opposition.
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) continues to misquote me. I have not given any commitments to additional funding because of the mess that the Government have made, but we will introduce a fair system. How can the Minister justify the current system? Under the Government grant system, the council tax payers of Westminster contribute only 4 per cent. to the cost of their services while, for example, the people of Wirral are expected to pay 24 per cent. Will he promise to change that system?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady should recognise that experts consider the SSA to be the fairest system.
    826
    However, some Opposition Members do not accept the word of experts. The taxpayer may not pay for any change, but the council tax payer will. First, the hon. Lady will massage the SSA, then she will remove capping, stop compulsory competitive tendering, return the business rate to local councils and introduce new regional authorities such as the Greater London council. I know who will pay for that—the council tax payer.
    Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend will be aware of the initiative by Lancashire county council in requesting an independent review of the area cost adjustment. Although such a review may mean that the county gets £20 million less next year, and despite the stupidity of the Labour-controlled county council in asking for one in the first place, will my hon. Friend consider delaying its implementation for at least a year?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The review will be implemented only if we are absolutely sure that the new system is robust and stands up to close inspection.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total annual amount spent by his Department on energy conservation in each of the last three years. [3126]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department's expenditure on energy efficiency was £68.3 million in 1993–94, £109.9 million in 1994–95, and £132.8 million in 1995–96—a total of £311 million for the three years.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the cut of more than —30 million in the home energy efficiency scheme means that many people—particularly senior citizens—are no longer eligible for grants to insulate their homes or improve their heating systems? Now that the cold weather is upon us again and the last ever Budget of this miserable Tory Government is due next week, will the Minister make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase investment in the scheme in order to conserve energy and alleviate some of the hardship that has been caused by the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked a similar question. I find that quite understandable, so let me repeat that £30 million was added to HEES in anticipation of the House voting for the second stage of VAT on fuel. As it did not, the £30 million fell. I realise that HEES is extremely popular and successful. Incidentally, it did not exist under the last Labour Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that eligibility has not been changed in any way, shape or form. Pensioners and disabled people qualify for help under HEES. The fact that those who are better off get a 25 per cent. discount while those on the lowest incomes get a 100 per cent. discount merely reflects the advice that we have received from many that the scheme should be more targeted.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend recall that, since Labour was in power, we have increased the number of

    827
    homes with loft insulation by more than double, to 89 per cent., we have increased the number of homes with cavity wall insulation tenfold, and increased the number of homes with double glazing sevenfold? Does not that demonstrate the success of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Jones: That question certainly shows that my hon. Friend takes more interest in the subject than the whole of the Labour party put together. The HEES will have benefited 2 million households. That is an enormous achievement.

    Water Companies
    Mr. Pearson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the publication of the Office of Water Services' report on the financial performance and capital investment of the water companies in England and Wales in 1995 and 1996. [3127]
    Mr. Gummer: None. However, I welcome the fact that the report shows that capital investment in the water industry has remained high—far higher than before privatisation. At the same time, the regulator has encouraged companies to reduce their costs and to improve their efficiency.
    Mr. Pearson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Severn Trent's profits have virtually trebled since privatisation, and customer bills have rocketed by 44 per cent. more than inflation, but investment has been cut every year since 1991–92? Is he also aware that, since privatisation, Severn Trent has paid absolutely no corporation tax on its mainstream sewage and water businesses? Does that not amount to a double whammy on consumers and taxpayers in the west midlands?
    Mr. Gummer: I am aware that, when the water companies were nationalised, they spent an average of £1.6 billion on investment; in comparable terms, they now spend an average of more than £3 billion. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the mess that was left behind because of public ownership of the water industry has now been cleared up and that people are coming from all over the world to ask British water companies to do their water improvements.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that, as the result of the huge capital investment by North West Water, the sea off Blackpool's beaches has now been greatly improved and that tourism businesses will benefit dramatically from the good news of Blackpool's beaches now being approved under European Community standards? Is that not a further demonstration that the Labour party's carping criticism does not reflect the reality of real investment to help Britain's tourism industry?
    Mr. Gummer: I am certainly pleased by the clean-up of Blackpool's beaches, which was not possible when the water industry was nationalised. I hope that my hon. Friend has noticed that the former Labour leader of Manchester city council wrote to the Canadian authorities to try to undermine North West Water's bid to help the water industry in Canada—again hitting out against the
    828
    British water industry, British jobs and British investment. I hope that the Labour party will dissociate itself from its prospective candidate for Manchester, Blackley.

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what local authority delegations he has received concerning the 1997–98 revenue support grant settlement. [3128]
    Sir Paul Beresford: I meet representatives of local authorities throughout the year to discuss a range of issues affecting local government. It is, of course, open to all authorities to request a meeting with Ministers during the formal consultation period that follows the provisional settlement announcement later this month.
    Mrs. Jackson: Has the Minister read his Government's evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee in which they admit that it is policy that council tax levels should rise? Will he confirm today that the Government's policy is to hike up council tax, possibly by as much as 16 per cent. over the next two years? Does he recognise that that is the 23rd Tory tax rise since 1992 and that he cannot continue to blame Labour local councils for that?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am always sorry for the hon. Lady when it comes to defending her local council in Sheffield, which seems to get itself in straight difficulty. There is a thing called Supertram, which looks more like a black hole. The council's property services department is underselling properties by a huge degree, which is to the disadvantage of the local authority. In addition to that, the department seems to have lost 200 properties. Nevertheless, the authority has rewarded the managers of that service by giving them a £4,000 a year pay rise.
    Sir Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend remember that, among the delegations that came to his Department this year, was one that represented a number of counties and all the major political parties and that was concerned about the unfairnesses of the area cost adjustment? Does he accept that those unfairnesses exist; that they were highlighted in the report by Professor Elliott; and that, if nothing is done to implement the recommendations in that report, those profound injustices will continue to affect Northamptonshire and many other counties?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I do recall my hon. Friend's visit with his delegation. As he will be aware, the report contained as many findings for as against, so before we implement the report's recommendations, we must be absolutely sure that they are well founded.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the Budget to be announced next week, the Government plan to increase council tax way above the rate of inflation as part of their long-term plan to raise council tax by £3.5 billion—equivalent to adding 2p to the standard rate of income tax?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman ought to know better. He has been here far longer than I have, and

    829
    even I realise that that is a silly question, which I cannot answer; that will be left for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the right time.
    Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister heard of an organisation called SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's microphone is not on and no one can hear him.
    Mr. Bellingham: I think that the Minister heard; I mentioned SPLAT, which stands for Sparsely Populated Local Authorities Team, headed by King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and its superb treasurer, David Tate. Can my hon. Friend confirm that representatives have visited his colleague, the Minister of State, and can he confirm that their views and representations will be listened to?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I can confirm the point, and yes they are being taken on board and listened to carefully.

    Capital Challenge
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authority leaders concerning capital challenge. [3129]
    Mr. Curry: Progress with the pilot scheme is regularly discussed at ministerial bimonthly meetings with the local government associations.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that council leaders everywhere are worried about the time taken in preparing bids for all those challenge-type schemes? They are fed up with the fact that no extra money is made available for them, they are fed up with the rules continually changing and they are fed up with those schemes not dealing with the urgent priorities of expenditure that exist in many parts of the country.
    Mr. Curry: I was expecting the hon. Member to make that comment, because he firmly represents old Labour. Whenever we introduce a scheme, local authority leaders say, "This is terrible; it is new, it is innovative. We want to carry on as we always have," and when it works and it delivers they say, "That was a very good scheme indeed; you ought to continue it."
    There is new money—the money we bring in from the private sector. That is what is so good about the challenge programme. It adds private sector money to public sector money, and very many Labour local authority leaders throughout the country will benefit from it and are beginning to appreciate the schemes greatly.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What sort of money is coming from the private sector? My right hon. Friend noted that local authority leaders always say that they cannot find matching funds and then promptly go off and do just that from completely new, non-public funds. Can he give us an idea of how much that has saved for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Curry: In the capital challenge programme, according to the bids that we have received, for every
    830
    £1 bid, £1.70 comes with it, of which 90p is from the private sector. Those are the bids; we expect better figures in the final acceptances.

    Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [3130]
    Mr. Clappison: Our Department has made no estimate of future sales.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that many people are experiencing mortgage repayment difficulties, would it not have been far better to introduce a scheme for mortgages to rents, instead of that Tory political dogma?
    Mr. Clappison: No. I make no apology for a policy that was one of a range of options for enabling tenants to become home owners. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our policies have succeeded in enabling tenants to become home owners—more than 1.5 million have done so since 1979 and many more will have that opportunity under a Conservative Government in future.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last three months concerning opencast mining planning applications; and if he will make a statement. [3132]
    Sir Paul Beresford: My Department has received representations from three members of the public, a firm of solicitors, the Ramblers Association and the hon. Member concerning opencast mining planning applications in the last three months.
    Mr. Barnes: Why is the north-east corner of Derbyshire, involving the constituencies of Chesterfield, Bolsover and North-East Derbyshire, bottom of the league when it comes to standard spending assessment per head of population, bottom of the league when it comes to lottery grants, but top of the league when it comes to having its guts ripped out by opencast mining operations and current applications? Should not the rules be changed, so that there is a disposition against opencast mining, rather than the pressure for it from the Government?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman had better read the changes that we introduced in MPG 3. I will send him a copy.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the Windsor site in my constituency, and that that could shortly become the subject of an application to Kirklees council for opencast mining? Is he further aware that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recently visited the constituency to tell local residents that he was the white knight on the charger who would refuse all such applications in the future?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) also told the nation how much it would cost to import coal, as we shall not have any.

    Public Services (Rotherham)
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the level of Government funding from his Department for the provision of public services by Rotherham metropolitan borough council in 1996–97. [3133]
    Mr. Curry: The main financial support from central Government is the revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates. Rotherham gets £159,894 million from those sources.
    Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that if Rotherham and other northern and midlands boroughs got the same money as central Government give to sleaze-ridden Westminster, we would not have to put up council tax? When will the Government treat the rest of the country on a par with their friends in sleaze-ridden councils in London?
    Mr. Curry: Westminster, of course, does not get anywhere near the amount of grant that Tower Hamlets receives. If Rotherham were to get the grant of Tower Hamlets, that would clearly be a massive injustice. I intend to see that grant goes where it is most needed, and the inner London authorities are uniformly where it is most needed.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3146]
    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.
    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the low level of unemployment in my constituency, Congleton, which has fallen by a further 7.5 per cent. over the past year, would immediately be put in jeopardy if the minimum wage, the 48-hour working week and the social chapter were implemented?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the fall in unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am delighted that that fall is mirrored in the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House. It is certainly the case that, were extra impositions such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend to be placed on employers, they would stop the fall in unemployment and send it returning upwards. That is not what we want, which is why we shall not accept the social chapter or such impositions.
    Mr. Blair: Why has the Prime Minister not yet made good the promise given two years ago to eliminate mixed-sex wards in our hospitals?
    The Prime Minister: We are seeking to make progress as soon as we can on every aspect of improvement in the
    832
    health service. We have given priority to other matters. That has brought the waiting list down, widened the number of operations that have been offered and improved the quality of care. As we can, we shall move on the other issue.
    Mr. Blair: My point is that the Government made a specific promise two years ago that that issue would be a priority. Is not what is needed a proper programme that is led and co-ordinated by Government with the health authorities and national health service trusts, and the setting of a specified timetable to eliminate those wards, which cause enormous indignity, and distress people? The Government would thereby keep the promise that was made two years ago.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating—I agree with him—a properly managed examination of what could be done to improve the service across the health service. I agree with that. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on management. Management has been concentrating on getting more people treated. More people have been treated, and management will continue to move to improve that, and to improve the quality, dignity and privacy of service, as we announced.
    Mr. Blair: I find it extraordinary that the Government are spending £1.5 billion more on administration—
    Mr. Devlin: He is out of order: he must ask a question.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I need no lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
    Mr. Blair: Might I point out to the Prime Minister that there are 20,000 more senior managers and that £1.5 billion extra is spent on administration? Is it beyond the collective wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem? It is a question not just of money, but of political will. My point is very simple: did not the Prime Minister promise two years ago to deal with the problem? Why has he not delivered? If he does not deliver on that promise, why should anyone believe his promises about the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: If I had said at the last election that we would treat as many new patients as we are now, the right hon. Gentleman would not have believed me. If I had said at the last election that we would deliver extra resources, he would not have believed me. He and his colleagues claimed that we would privatise the health service. We said that we would not, and we have not. I hope that he accepts that that is the case now, and that it will not occur in the future. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that fact.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3147]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 640—22 per cent.—since the beginning of the year? Is not a reason for that good news the fact that the United Kingdom has a stable industrial climate with few strikes, except in the public sector? Is it not true that only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to do anything about that problem because the Labour party, with its strong links to the unions, is still the strikers' friend?[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    The Prime Minister: There seems to be some support on the Opposition Benches for Labour's support of the strikes—I hope that everyone noticed it.
    I have no doubt that one of the reasons why we are attracting more foreign investment than any other country is our success in restoring industrial stability in the private sector. The number of strikes today is one twenty-fifth of the level that it was when we came to government in 1979. I believe that people deserve the same protection against strikes in the public sector that they increasingly enjoy elsewhere. If Opposition Members do not agree, I suggest that they ask businesses whose post was not delivered and travellers who could not get to work because of strikes in those sectors.
    Mr. Hume: Given the Government's praiseworthy efforts to promote agreement among the political parties in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), proposes to reduce the number of education boards—which are the most highly respected cross-community bodies in Northern Ireland—from five to three? During the consultation process, every Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, the leaders of all political parties, all Church leaders and all local authorities disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Why are the Government ignoring the unanimous wish of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to education?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that that is the position with my right hon. Friend, but I shall examine the details of the hon. Gentleman's claims and then write to him. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend did not have an extremely good reason for any decision he may have taken.
    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Points of order come after questions, private notice questions and statements.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average household electricity bill in the eastern area is £272, while in France it is £366 and in Germany it is £394? Does that not demonstrate the success of electricity privatisation? Is not a sign of its success the fact that the Opposition wish to impose a windfall profits tax on the industry and put it at risk?
    The Prime Minister: The comparative prices that my hon. Friend quotes are a striking tribute to the success of privatisation over the past 18 years. I am delighted to see them. I very much hope that we shall keep those prices down. My hon. Friend is entirely right: a windfall tax would force prices up for consumers, and at an unknown amount, because we do not yet know precisely who will be subject to the windfall tax or what the levy would be on companies and thence on consumers.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3148]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Cunningham: With regard to yesterday's meeting in Brussels, and the beef ban, is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Union for Scotland is openly accusing the Government of straightforward prevarication in their refusal to proceed with the selective cattle cull, and that that gives rise to a very real apprehension that the Government are simply trying to stoke anti-European feeling in advance of an election and, indeed, to sacrifice the farmers? Why does he continue to set his face against a phased lifting of the ban, which would be of immediate benefit to Scotland and Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of all the things that are going on in Brussels and the discussions that we are having, or she certainly would not have asked her question in that fashion.
    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to pensioners in my constituency who are worried that the so-called flexible decade of retirement will mean massive increases in public spending and taxes or a severe cut in the state retirement pension?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that the plans proposed by the Opposition, in which a flexible decade of retirement would enable some people to retire early, would mean a massive increase in public expenditure, which they have said that they would not provide, or a significant cut in the basic rate of pension. I suggest that they come clean on precisely what they propose.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3149]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Is it still the Prime Minister's position that there is a moral case for cutting taxation? If so, can he explain the moral case for promising to cut taxation before an election and for increasing it as soon as the election is over?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do believe in cutting taxation, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support when it is appropriate to cut taxation again in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by cutting taxation we are giving money back to people. I would say that by cutting taxation we are taking less of people's own money.
    Mr. Atkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3150]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the independent auditor's report, published yesterday, of the criminal and corrupt activities of Labour councillors on Labour-controlled Preston borough council who have lost or mislaid millions of pounds of Preston taxpayers' money in recent years? Does he agree that that is the real example of sleaze and corruption in public life which should be rooted out? Is not that further example of Labour mismanagement of local authorities damning proof of what will happen if Labour ever controls our country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the character of any party becomes clear until it is in power. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In local government, Labour is in power, and in power it has a habit of pouring taxpayers' money down the drain and running up debts. Right across the country, where there are Labour councils one can see that "If you vote red, you live in the red."
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3151]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is difficult to hear.
    Ms Hodge: Will the Prime Minister think again about his crass and insensitive reply to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he appreciate that the issue of mixed-sex wards is of particular importance to women? Does he know that 50 per cent. of women who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual abuse? Will he give us a date when he will meet the promise that he gave two years ago? If not, how can we believe that the NHS is safe in the Government's hands?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Lady spend Question Time after Question Time painting a picture of the NHS that does not exist for those who use it. During our 18 years in office, we have continually put more resources into the NHS, widened the services available to it, ensured that more operations are carried out and cut waiting times. That is a record that no previous Government have been able to match. If the hon. Lady remembers, it was under the previous Labour Government that waiting lists went up, hospitals were closed and the NHS practically came to a full stop.

Channel Tunnel (Fire)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fire in the channel tunnel.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): At approximately 8.45 pm GMT yesterday, a fire broke out in a lorry on board a Eurotunnel freight shuttle inside the channel tunnel between Calais and Folkestone. The shuttle was carrying 29 heavy goods vehicles with 31 drivers and companions, plus three crew members. The shuttle, on its way from France, had a French driver and crew. It stopped 12 miles through its journey on the French side of the tunnel.
Emergency services, firefighters and ambulances, arrived at the scene within 20 minutes and helped evacuate everyone on board the shuttle. Twenty-eight were taken back to France by a tourist shuttle travelling in the untouched northern tunnel, and six were evacuated by the service tunnel transport system. Eight people were taken to hospital, two of whom were detained, including the driver of the shuttle; their condition is reported to be serious but not life threatening. I understand that both will be discharged today.
French and British fire brigades worked through the night to bring the fire under control. The emergency is now over. I am sure that the House will want to join me in congratulating the emergency services on the way in which they coped with the incident and in expressing relief that there were no fatalities.
The French authorities have already begun a formal inquiry. That is for them since the incident happened in the French part of the tunnel. Eurotunnel's own investigation is under way. In addition, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which includes representatives from this country and France, will be making its own inquiry into the incident and studying the reports from the operators and the French authorities. The safety authority's findings will be made public. I shall be urging my French counterpart, Mr. Pons, to ensure that the French authorities publish their findings as soon as they properly can so that the lessons of this incident can be learnt by all concerned.
In the meantime, it would be wrong to speculate on the causes of the fire. I can assure the House, however, that representatives of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority are on site and will not allow either passenger or freight operations to recommence until Eurotunnel can prove that that can be done safely.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House of Commons will be grateful to the firefighters of both countries for their immediate response and the efficiency of the manner in which they carried out the rescue of the drivers trapped in the tunnel? Is he also aware that the safety authority originally recommended that semi-open wagons should not be used for the carriage of heavy goods vehicles? Last July, when I questioned his Department about a new risk assessment of the dangers arising from the carriage of heavy goods vehicles in semi-open wagons, I was told that there was no need for such an assessment, and that everything was for the best in the best of all worlds.
838
Given that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority changed its original advice, because it was told that it should take account of the costs and commercial interests of the channel tunnel operators, does the Secretary of State agree that it is imperative that safety be the first assessment? Does he further agree that even if it costs money to enclose heavy goods vehicles in wagons that, last night, would have prevented the spread of toxic fumes and the considerable difficulty caused to the people who had to lie on the floor for 20 minutes, that should be undertaken immediately, irrespective of the results of any inquiry?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said about the emergency services. I am sure that the House endorses her comments.
I think that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority will want to reconsider the shuttle design when the inquiries that I have announced have been completed. The safety authority approved the shuttle design before it was used by Eurotunnel and the other operators. Before approval was given, it carried out extensive fire modelling and full-scale fire tests on a loaded heavy goods vehicle. The CTSA would not have approved the design, had it not been satisfied that its concerns about safety had been met. It is independent of the operators. None the less, I am sure that the authority will return to this matter when we have the results of the three inquiries.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I, on behalf of my constituents, add my thanks to those of my right hon. Friend for the work of the Kent fire brigade last night? It was a tremendous tribute to its training and professionalism.
The question of open-sided or lattice-sided lorries was raised as long ago as 1991, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs looked into fire safety in the channel tunnel and serious concerns were expressed. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that this issue is re-examined, and that attention is paid to the fact that, last night, although passengers should have been evacuated without injury, they were not? Will he ensure that the findings of the three inquiries are published, and that the necessary remedial action, whatever it may be, is taken?
Sir George Young: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. As I have said, I am sure that the CTSA will re-examine the design of the wagons. I made it clear that the results of two of the inquiries will be made public. The third inquiry is the responsibility of the French authority, because it is the lead health and safety authority in this instance.
I also make it clear that I will contact the French Transport Minister to express my wish that he make public the results of his inquiries—as we intend to do with our two inquiries. I am sure that all bodies will want to ensure that the recommendations that emerge from the inquiries are pursued with vigour.
Mr. Andrew Smith: I, too, strongly praise the bravery of the victims and the heroism of the train crew and the emergency services. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be full public disclosure of the evidence examined by as well as the conclusions of the formal inquiry, the CTSA inquiry and

839
the Eurotunnel report, together with the results of the safety tests on the wagons to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred, so that the public know that, as a matter of priority, all safety aspects have been thoroughly reviewed and the necessary action has been taken?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put that question. I agree with him that it is important to reassure the public and to re-establish public confidence in the link. The results of the inquiries to be undertaken in the United Kingdom will be made public. Eurotunnel has made it clear that it wants to co-operate with the CTSA. I will be talking to the French to ensure that the results of their inquiries are published. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the interests of re-establishing public confidence, it is important to be as open about the inquiries as one possibly can be.
Mr. David Shaw: May I express my concern for those who were in the channel tunnel last night in very dangerous and difficult circumstances? May I also raise the issue of enclosed freight wagons? I understand that the only reason why the wagons are not enclosed is the fact that a mathematical error was made in the adding up of the weights, which means that the axles cannot take an enclosed wagon.
There are other safety concerns. A passenger train behind the freight train was unable to continue on its journey. We have always been told that, if there were a fire in a train moving through the channel tunnel, that train would continue and the fire would be put out in a siding, so that all passenger trains following behind would be able to go through the tunnel safely.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking my constituents in Dover and Deal, who have experienced considerable difficulty today in coping with the ferry problems caused by the large amount of additional traffic through the port of Dover?
Sir George Young: I am sure that those conducting the inquiries will want to examine, among other things, the options available to the driver and the reasons for the decisions that he made. I think that it would be wrong to speculate at this stage, but those conducting the inquiries will want to know how the driver responded to the emergency with which he was confronted.
A fully enclosed design would have reduced the risk of fire spreading, but, as my hon. Friend implied, such a design would have other consequences. I am sure that the CTSA will want to revisit that issue, and I shall ensure that the inquiries deal with the other issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. David Chidgey: May I add my congratulations on the way in which the emergency services tackled what could have been a disaster?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Eurotunnel has claimed in the past that the wagons were designed in such a way that they could resist fire for some 30 minutes, and could therefore be safely transported to the end of the tunnel? In the event of their being immobilised, they could
840
be uncoupled, and the train could either continue forwards or be reversed out of the tunnel. In the event of the whole train being immobilised, passengers could be evacuated into the service tunnel, and the ventilation system could be controlled so as to blow the fumes and smoke away from them.
None of that happened. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that those factors are fully taken into account in the inquiries, and that the results and the tests are open to the public rather than being cloaked in secrecy, which is the current arrangement?
Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the 30-minute fire resistance refers to the passenger coaches rather than the wagons that were carrying the lorries. Certainly, the performance of the ventilation system is important; the inquiries will cover that, and I shall ensure that they take on board the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in his inquiries, the weight attributed to the Kent fire brigade is taken into consideration? I understand from some of the accounts that a high proportion of the brigade's total resources were waiting to see whether they would be required. It is very unsettling for us, in this large county, to find that we are given no additional assistance to deal with the enormous transport corridor that is on our doorstep.
Sir George Young: I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that his question deals with a slightly broader issue than the issue covered in my statement. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as it relates to the resources available to my hon. Friend's local authority.
As for pressure on fire services in Kent, the CTSA, which is conducting one of the inquiries, includes as one of its members Kent's county fire officer. I assume that he will bring the issue raised by my hon. Friend to the authority's attention.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiries are not drawn so narrowly as to exclude examination of Eurotunnel's general stewardship of safety and security in the tunnel? Does he agree that safety and security are, in fact, indivisible? Has not Transec—which I believe is a department within the Secretary of State's stewardship—recently indicated that it nearly closed the tunnel, and are not search arrangements for both commercial vehicles and passengers under review? Is not the work about to be hived off to an agency? Indeed, that may have already happened.
As well as being reassured about the circumstances relating to the fire, and told why assurances were not fulfilled last night, the public need to be satisfied that security is of paramount importance, and that there will be no diminution in the level of security—although there are indications that that might happen.
Sir George Young: Security is important, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not the practice of Ministers to go into details of security arrangements for any particular transport mode. The inquiry will cover

841
everything that is relevant and I remind him that the CTSA is independent of Eurotunnel. It has been set up under the treaty of Canterbury to advise and to assist the intergovernmental commission on all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the fixed link. Those terms of reference are broad enough to cover everything that is relevant to last night's incident.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not to the credit of the Kent ferry industry that, with this terrible disaster in the tunnel stopping traffic going through it, that industry has risen to the challenge and, with virtually no disruption, has provided proper ferry services? Will my right hon. Friend join in the thanks that have already been voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and that would no doubt be echoed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to his constituents, who are also involved in the industry?
Sir George Young: Clearly, passengers wanting to get across the channel from both directions have faced enormous difficulties. I understand that there has been a good response from the ferry companies, which, despite today's difficult weather, have been able to accommodate many of the people who would otherwise have remained stranded.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is not just a question of being wise after the event. May I refer to the precise question that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tabled on 22 July, which was answered by the Minister for Railways and Roads, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts)? Why is it that the intergovernmental commission was not asked to examine or decline to examine the question of toxic fumes in relation to semi-open wagons? This was not only in a sense predictable, but predicted, foreseeable and foreseen by my hon. Friend.
Sir George Young: The CTSA needs no such directions or instructions from Ministers. It has been set up precisely to advise and assist the intergovernmental commission on all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the fixed link. It includes on its membership the Kent county fire officer, the deputy chief inspector of railways, civil engineers and people with health and safety expertise. It has the remit and the capacity to investigate matters that are of concern to it.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there was excellent co-operation
842
between safety personnel on both the British and French side in what was a frightening incident, mercifully in contrast with the heavy and tragic loss of life on ferry boats in the past? None the less, unless there is a thorough investigation, one cannot be sure that worse things will not occur. Will he promise to include in the range of items to be investigated profoundly the prohibition of combustible materials, particularly those emitting toxic smoke and poisonous smoke fumes?
Sir George Young: I am sure that the inquiries will want to consider those particular issues, but my hon. Friend has reminded the House that the rescue system worked broadly as planned. Of course any casualties are deeply regretted, but there was no loss of life and that is a tribute to the emergency services.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when the House was considering the Act that authorised the construction of the channel tunnel, serious concerns were expressed about the implications of some of the shuttle service's design features and their possible implications for fire safety? Given his emphasis on the safety authority's role, does he also recall that serious concerns were voiced that its role was to react to Eurotunnel's proposals and to assess those, rather than to recommend what might be the most appropriate design to guarantee optimum safety? Will he therefore now ensure that, in the investigation and inquiry into yesterday's unfortunate accident, the safety authority is not precluded from considering whether alternative design arrangements, both for heavy goods vehicle wagons and for wagons carrying motor cars, where there is no segregation between passengers and vehicles, may not be the best arrangements for guaranteeing the public's safety? Will he ensure that the public's safety and the most appropriate design arrangement to secure it, are at the forefront of the minds of all the people who are responsible for considering the results of the inquiry?
Sir George Young: I believe that I am right in saying that both the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Committee considering the legislation to which he refers. It took a substantially long time to get through the House, due in part, if I may say so, to his objections— [Interruption.]—not just on safety; it raised a number of broader issues. Of course, safety considerations must be paramount. As I said earlier, I am sure that the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority will want to consider precisely the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised—the design of the wagons concerned.

Trade Unions
3.49 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I would like to make a statement on the Green Paper on industrial action and trade unions, which I have published today.
Industrial relations in this country have improved beyond recognition since the Government were elected in 1979. In that year, almost 30 million working days were lost through industrial action. Last year, the figure was 415,000—down by more than 98 per cent. In 1994, we lost fewer days than in any calendar year since records began in 1891.
Our industrial relations record—once a music-hall joke—is now a major selling point for the country. Foreign investors appreciate the transformation. It helps to explain why the United Kingdom attracts more inward investment from outside the European Union than any other member state.
The Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations law has played a significant part in that rehabilitation. It put an end to abuses such as the closed shop and the car park show of hands. It created a fairer balance in the workplace. It created a fairer balance, framed by law, between individual union members and their union's leaders.
The Government began this series of reforms with the Employment Act 1980. We built on that base carefully and after consultation, targeting specific problems in five further rounds of legislation. We have crafted a legal framework which is, on the whole, working very well. Each step along the way was fiercely opposed by Labour Members.
However, the events of this summer have reminded us of the damage and suffering that strikes can inflict. More working days were lost in the single month of August than during the whole of last year. Millions of people had their lives disrupted by strikes on the London underground and on the railways. Firms had their business disrupted by a succession of postal strikes.
Happily, many of the summer's disputes are settled or on the way to settlement, as they should always have been, by negotiation. However, there is a danger that bad examples will be followed. Today, most universities throughout the country are suffering from the effects of industrial action taken by eight different unions. In Scotland, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is planning a five-day strike that will paralyse rail travel throughout Scotland from 26 November.
The Government will not stand by and watch the virus of crude strike action flare up again as it did this summer. Our people deserve protection both from excessive use of the strike weapon, which should always be only the weapon of last resort, and from the cynical use of the public as hostages in a dispute.
Our enormously successful privatisation programme has introduced competition in many areas, and we must seek to extend that. Strikes these days are largely concentrated in the public sector and in services where there is little or no competition and therefore little alternative for the public who depend on these services.
844
More than 70 per cent. of all days lost through strikes occur in those areas, where the public sector or monopolies predominate, compared with around 10 per cent. in the 1970s. In those sectors, the scope for inflicting damage is great and the constraints minimal.
It is precisely because some strikes cause disproportionate disruption to the public that the Government must act to mitigate that damage. The proposals in the Green Paper are aimed to contain damage to the public caused by strikes of that kind, especially strikes where the public have no alternative.
I have concluded that a new approach is required—an approach which avoids the difficulty of defining in advance which services are essential. Instead, the Green Paper proposes that strikes should lose immunity if their effects are "disproportionate or excessive".
That is a reasonable and measured approach. It means that unions must think more carefully before embarking on industrial action. They will need to consider what effect their action might have on third parties. If they call strikes that threaten health or safety, or national security, or which cause serious damage to property, or which significantly disrupt everyday life or activities, they could lose their statutory immunity. In other words, the rights of innocent third parties—the public, businesses—will be brought into the equation.
I cannot see how anyone can argue that unions should have immunity from the law to cause such damage or disruption to those not directly involved in their disputes, but directly affected by their strike action. So, if a trade union calls, or threatens to call, action which has or is likely to have disproportionate or excessive effects, the workers' employer, and other businesses affected, could go to court to seek an injunction or interdict either to stop the union or, if necessary, to sue the union for damages. Moreover, anyone who is deprived of goods or services as a result of industrial action with disproportionate or excessive effects could apply for a court order to stop the union. The Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action could assist such applicants.
I repeat that this is a measured proposal. Trade unions that behave responsibly and take the wider public and national interest into account have nothing to fear from it.
The Green Paper contains a number of other proposals to encourage the responsible conduct of industrial action. Strikes should be called only as a last resort. They should not be precipitate—adequate notice should be given to all concerned. That gives time for talks that might avert the strike altogether and gives those likely to be affected by a strike the time to make contingency preparations. At present, unions have to give seven days' notice of industrial action. The Green Paper proposes that the notice period should be increased to 14 days.
Strikes should be called only when the union's members have first voted clearly in support, in a secret ballot. The Green Paper proposes that, henceforth, at least half of those eligible to vote must support the proposed industrial action. Going on strike is a serious decision. It involves breaching contracts; it can have far-reaching effects on the livelihoods of both strikers and others; it can bankrupt firms or lead to factories being closed. So it is right that such action should have the support of a majority of all those who can participate in such a decision.

845
In addition, the initial ballot should not give a union an open-ended mandate for striking. Trade union members should be able to say from time to time whether they still support the action or whether they are prepared to return to work. The Green Paper therefore proposes that there should be a fresh ballot after two or three months, where action is continuous, or after a specified number of short strikes.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Lang: That fresh ballot will increase the democratic control of trade union members and force all unions to come up to the standards of good practice that some already follow. Opinions on the most appropriate time scales will be welcomed.
The Government have taken the opportunity of the Green Paper to review legislation other than that relating to industrial action. We conclude that most of it is working as intended and is as relevant today as when it was first enacted. In some other—relatively minor—areas, however, some changes should now be considered. The Green Paper suggests changes to remove the obligation on employers to provide certain facilities and information to recognised trade unions. Those matters, like much else in our system of industrial relations, should be left to management and unions to decide for themselves. There is no compelling reason why the law should intervene in that area. I am also suggesting some minor adjustments to remove anomalies in procedures for union elections.
The Green Paper is being issued initially as a basis for consultation. It discusses various options and explains why the Government favour some and not others. It invites views and suggestions. Each major step of our reform of industrial relations legislation has been preceded by consultation, which has ensured that measures have been well targeted and workable. I look forward to receiving constructive comments on the latest set of proposals.
In recent years, our industrial relations have been a remarkable success story. We must build on that success and not allow ourselves to fall back into the old, self-destructive ways. The Government's proposals are designed to ensure that the last vestiges of our irresponsible, strike-prone tradition are removed. They match the expectations of the public as we approach the beginning of the new century as well as the needs of our modern, successful and competitive economy. I commend them to the House.
Mr. David Blunkett: The Green Paper is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. It does nothing to prevent or to resolve disputes. It is simply a lawyer's charter, an invitation to mischief makers and for political point scoring. It has more to do with the proximity of a general election than with improving industrial relations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who is in favour of the proposals? Will he tell us whether any of his predecessors, from Lord Tebbit, who held the post from 1981 to 1983, through the following seven Secretaries of State, is in favour? Is the present Home Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the present Secretary of State for Education and Employment in favour of them? Is even the present Secretary of State
846
for Defence in favour? None of them acted on the Green Paper of 1981 or the Tory party manifesto pledge of 1983. Will the President confirm that the Green Paper merely repeats those mantras?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House which businesses or organisations representing business are in favour, from small businesses through to the Institute of Directors? Will he tell the House whether the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or experts in industrial law support the measures? Will he tell us how using words such as "virus" is helpful to improving industrial relations? Is not the Green Paper calculated to inflame and to exacerbate rather than to heal?
What justification has the right hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposes to make in the balloting rules and procedures to deny people a simple majority? Is it not a fact that, on 1 November, on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, he said that he had got that proposal from his local golf club rules? Frankly, that is an insult to everyone engaged in industrial relations. Will he give the House an example of a dispute that would fall into the category of being disproportionate or excessive in effect? How would the courts rule on the effects of actions in a case in which, for instance, access to new technology changed entirely the impact, and therefore the effect, on an individual's companies or groups? Would the proposals help in any way if there were an increase in unofficial strikes?
Will the President tell the House under what circumstances he would have to send in the Official Solicitor to bail out again people who fell into the category of those who had to be imprisoned for refusing to obey an injunction under the Green Paper that he has published today? Does he really think that denying the people the right to time off as union representatives, or the information necessary to sit down and reach agreement with their employer, will help industrial relations in Britain in the late 1990s?
What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the role of the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action? Will he confirm this afternoon that £98,000 a year is spent on that commissioner; that £18,000, at the last count, was spent on a salary for a one-day-a-week post; that in 1995, the last year for which figures are available, only three cases were referred to the commissioner; and that in 1994 no cases were referred to the commissioner? Does he think that that is value for money, and does he intend to use that procedural mechanism under his Green Paper?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while all of us believe that the life, safety or health of the individual or the nation as a whole are crucial and should be protected, they are definable and, under existing laws, they are achieved? But how would the definition
"significant disruption of everyday life or activities"
be defined on the face of the Bill? How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman think that we would be able to sort out such a mish-mash?
Is this not a Government attempt to sweep away the sensible measures of advice, conciliation, arbitration and mediation; an attempt in the lead-up to a general election to politicise relations which, by the Secretary of State's own admission, are currently better than they have been for many years? Is the statement not a prime example of a Government falling back into what he described this afternoon as "old, self-destructive ways"? This

847
right-wing, dogmatic Government are determined to go backwards to a bygone era, rather than forwards to a new century. Enough is enough. It is time to give the people the real ballot they need, to get a new Government with a new vision for a new millennium.
Mr. Lang: At least the hon. Gentleman commented on industrial relations and strikes—unlike the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who, when invited last July to condemn the strike on London Underground, said:
"I have nothing whatever to say."
Unfortunately, most of what the hon. Gentleman has said is wrong. He asked me who was in favour of the changes, and suggested that none of my colleagues is. I am happy to reassure him that all my colleagues in government support the changes, and are looking forward to the consultation process and the subsequent enactment of the proposals. He suggested that my predecessors might not be in favour, yet in his next breath suggested that all the proposals have appeared in earlier Green Papers. He is wrong—none of the proposals in the Government's package has been contained in previous Green Papers.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the proposals would make matters worse, but I suggest to him that they are fair, focused and reasonable, and give rights to the public. The proposals are shifting the balance against strikes and strikers as the weapons of first resort, and they will make sure that the unions will be bound in future to consider more carefully before going on strike the implications of their strikes and the effect that they will have on the public for fear of the loss of their immunity.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider proposals that would make matters worse, he should look at Labour's proposals—forcing employers to recognise trade unions for bargaining purposes, granting trade unions new legal protections for strikers, giving new powers to trade unions, encouraging—as the right hon. Member for Derby, South would do—a return to secondary picketing, and giving the trade unions a say in the Labour party's manifesto.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that this Green Paper is a pre-election gimmick, but Labour said that in 1979, when 30 million days were lost through strikes, in 1983 and 1987, when the figure was down to 7 million days lost, and in 1992, when the figure for days lost was down to about 500,000 a year. We believe that the measures are well considered and relevant, and will reduce industrial action in those public services where there is no alternative and on which the public depend.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the circumstances where lawyers might benefit, but we contemplate clear guidance on the criteria for what is disproportionate and excessive. I anticipate that, far from thousands suing trade unions, it is more likely that one will be granted an injunction to prevent a strike from happening. More to the point, trade union behaviour will change, and there will be fewer strikes as a result of the proposals.
The hon. Member asked about majorities, and pressed me to give an example. Under the Companies Acts, there are proposals that require a majority of those eligible to vote, so the proposal is well precedented. He suggests that it is our purpose to sweep away ACAS, but I can reassure
848
him that the Government have no intention whatever to reduce or diminish the powers of ACAS. We believe that arbitration and conciliation are essential prerequisites to the resolution of industrial disputes, and are far more relevant to their resolution than the spontaneous industrial action that has become the norm in recent months in the public services.
We have heard evidence from the hon. Gentleman that Labour will always choose to side with the union leaders who bankroll the party, rather than the ordinary public when their interests are threatened. Labour has a shameful record on industrial relations—not just in office, but throughout its opposition to every measure that we have introduced to transform industrial relations in this country. This Green Paper contains a further package of proposals that are relevant and will continue that improvement.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Tory Back Benchers seem to be on strike—we have only the flying pickets.
Sir Norman Fowler: As a previous Secretary of State for Employment, I entirely support and welcome the Green Paper. Does not history show that every piece of legislation that has been introduced by the Government on industrial relations has been opposed by the Labour party, and that on every occasion it has been wrong? The people who would support the proposals are the public, who are entirely fed up with having their essential services, especially transport services, messed up as they have been over the past 12 months and in the preceding years.
Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was noticeable that, when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asked which bodies supported the proposals, he did not ask whether commuters or consumers supported them, because he knows perfectly well that they do.
My right hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the Labour party's record, both in government and in opposition; it has opposed at every step our improvements in industrial relations: secret ballots in place of car park meetings, the abolition of the closed shop, and getting rid of secondary picketing. It is clear that Labour would reintroduce trade union powers and begin to reverse our successes of recent years. We are determined to continue with our improvements, and the Green Paper offers a way in which to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is not a time for statements; it is a time for brisk questions, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reply equally briskly.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Is not the fact that the proposals are in a Green Paper rather than in one of the political gimmick Bills that are flowing forth from other Departments evidence that not even a Conservative Government would really try to implement them? Would not the opportunity for vexatious litigation in which anyone could argue about the meanings of disproportionate and excessive simply amount to a charter

849
for lawyers to make a fortune? Surely it would be better to promote no-strike deals, involving workers taking a reward in exchange for voluntarily giving up the right to strike. Is not this an example of the most blatant pre-election politics?
Mr. Lang: We are not contemplating taking away from workers the right to strike. The hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood the position. I have already answered the point about lawyers. If we had produced a White Paper or legislation, the Opposition would have been the first to complain that we had not first produced a Green Paper. We have produced a Green Paper before every industrial relations reform measure, in order to consult on it and proceed by consensus. The people who do not form part of that consensus are those in the Labour party, because they are in the pay of the trade union movement.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I first apologise to my right hon. Friend for being so eager to get in that I leaped up before I should have? Does he agree that the very fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that the proposals had been published with an election in view proves that he knows that they will be extremely popular? The Post Office strike has done more to undermine the public's belief in the Post Office than anything that anyone else could have done; it was a disaster that should never be repeated.
Mr. Lang: I welcome my hon. Friend's introductory remarks. She is right to say that, if we do not legislate before the general election, we shall have no hesitation whatever in inviting the electorate to endorse the proposals. The mail strike was one more example of how public monopoly services are the most prone to strikes these days; they now account for 70 per cent. of industrial action, whereas the figure was previously 10 per cent. That is a measure of how the private sector has come to its senses, and we must ensure that the public monopoly services do the same.
Mr. John Evans: Is it not ironic that the party that will not allow its members to elect either its chairman or its national executive committee is trying to introduce the most draconian conditions imposed on any trade union movement in Europe? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if immunities are lifted from trade unions in the circumstances that he has outlined, it will take the trade union movement back to where it was before the 1906 Taff Vale judgment?
Mr. Lang: The trade union movement has made great advances in the past 17 years; at long last, it has a framework of law and a democratic base on which to conduct its affairs honourably and properly. As for the proposals being draconian, I should point out that Britain has much less protection than other countries against strikes in essential services; there are far more robust measures in Germany, Belgium, France and Japan than are proposed in the Green Paper.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unions and their leaders and members have, in competitive industries, combined and co-operated with employers to bring in more inward investment and
850
to raise productivity? Does he accept that it is right to concentrate on the monopoly industries? He seems to have found an elegant way forward in that respect.
May I warn my right hon. Friend that the words "at this time" in paragraph 3.6 of the Green Paper, the health and safety proposal, would be strongly opposed by employers and by many Conservatives, who believe that the right of union and employee representatives to information on health and safety issues is one of the reasons why our health and safety record is so much better than that of most other European countries?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to the consultation process, which will no doubt yield comments on that point. He is right to focus on the importance of good industrial relations in attracting inward investment. It is surely no accident that, while strikes in the manufacturing sector have fallen by 99 per cent. since the Government came into office, productivity in that sector has increased by more than 70 per cent., and in consequence we have attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report of Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe on the causes of the underground strike in the summer? One headline said: "Our mistakes led to strikes, say Tube chiefs". The report stated:
"Communication within the company is weak. In particular and at all levels, constructive discussion and resolution of relevant business, performance and behavioural issues is often either absent or ineffective.
As a result, issues do not get adequately addressed and problems fester and grow."
How, then, can the public bring an action against management for disproportionate or excessive damage to their interest? Should not the Secretary of State consider proper penalties for employers who are not prepared to discuss matters with their employees or to recognise trade unions, and accept that their Victorian attitudes cause disproportionate damage to the long-suffering British public?
Mr. Lang: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument for privatisation. It has been most noticeable that the management of the public sector organisations has improved dramatically after privatisation. The hon. Gentleman asked about the public suing management. Management does not enjoy the civil immunities that trade unions enjoy. It is those civil immunities that are addressed by our proposal on disproportionate and excessive effects.
Sir David Madel: As a growing number of welcome no-strike deals are being voluntarily entered into, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention in the consultation process to what should happen when trade union leaders persistently recommend no strike but unofficial action takes place? We need to get that right. Is the new commissioner not to intervene in a dispute until ACAS has exhausted its efforts for a settlement?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend's first point will certainly be taken into account in considering industrial relations matters. It is not addressed by the "disproportionate and

851
excessive effects" proposal in the Green Paper, but should be further considered. The Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action can provide assistance to an individual if unlawful action is likely to deprive that person of goods or services. He can help that individual to seek an injunction either to prevent the action or to get it called off.
In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Brightside, which I omitted to answer in my initial response, the Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action dealt with 684 inquiries in 1995–96. The commissioner is the same person as the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, a statutory officer who has assisted, inter alia, the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) in her dispute with the Civil and Public Servants Association.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while we must always try to balance the rights of employees and the interests of the community and of employers, there is a real danger that we could deny the legitimate expression of grievance? What protection does he propose to introduce to protect the legitimate rights of employees?
Mr. Lang: We have no proposals whatever to inhibit the legitimate expression of rights by employees. We propose that, when a union is contemplating industrial action, it will have to consider the effects of that action on the public. Too often in the past the public have been the innocent victims of industrial disputes. Now we are insisting that they are brought into the equation, and that they have rights that unions must take into account before deciding to embark on industrial action.
Mr. David Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that strikes are an outdated method of settling industrial disputes? Does he also agree that strikes in essential services such as those on the underground and in the Post Office are, in effect, a blackmail of the community, and are unacceptable to civilised society?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the view that he has expressed is held by the great majority of the British people.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not nothing short of sheer hypocrisy for the Government to send a Minister to the Dispatch Box to talk about the bravery of the firefighters in Kent, the train drivers and others in the public services who saved lives, and then, about half an hour later, another tinpot Minister attacks those very same people, because, very rarely, they have the audacity to tell their Tory bosses, "Enough is enough," and threaten industrial action?
Let me remind the Secretary of State that the last Tory Prime Minister who went to a general election on the question, "Who rules Britain?"—he has just left the Chamber—failed, of course, to win. People can see this for what it is—an election gimmick. If the Secretary of State wants to deal in a fair society, he should remember that it takes two to cause a strike. It is not just employees. On many occasions, bosses deliberately cause strikes,
852
against the background of mass unemployment. The Government have encouraged that throughout their 17 years. Thank God they are on the way out.
Mr. Lang: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that before the 1992 election, the 1987 election and the 1983 election. We shall see. As for putting people at risk, I wonder what his view is about the strike called by Derbyshire fire services against Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council. Our proposals would bring the public into the equation and give them the right to take action if they were put at risk as a result of the action of Derbyshire fire services.
Mr. Skinner: I was negotiating a settlement; I was ACAS.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Was it not somewhat inconsistent of the Communication Workers Union to seek to punish the public by the withdrawal of their mail, having argued that the Post Office should not be privatised because it should remain a public service? Is there any relation between the fact that there have been strikes in the Post Office but not in British Telecom, and the fact that one is privatised and the other is not?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The introduction of competition and the breaking of monopolies is one way to undermine such attitudes that hold the public to ransom. Clearly we must do more on the privatisation front.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As trade unionists are consumers and consumers may well be trade unionists, are we not unnecessarily polarising the issue? Is it not the case that people may be deprived of goods and services by industrial action that is proportionate and not excessive? Is it not a matter of judgment as to which actions may be excessive? Individuals will have different interpretations, which are bound to lead to a plethora of cases being brought before the courts. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to limit the number of cases that may be repetitive or vexatious?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right—it is a matter of judgment. Individuals and organisations that seek to take action will need to judge whether they have suffered disproportionate or excessive effects. Before calling a strike, the trade unions will need to decide whether the effects of that strike on the public, industry or the community at large might be disproportionate or excessive.
We are setting out criteria in the Green Paper to give guidance on the matter. We are consulting on it, and we shall develop the proposals further. However, the underlying principle is clear: where disproportionate and excessive effects take place, the immunity of the trade union is, and rightly should be, forfeit.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the welcome that the Green Paper will get from London Underground commuters and the customers of the Post Office, who would say "sooner rather than later" of legislation? Does he remember how the strikes on the underground and in the postal service

853
embarrassed the Leader of the Opposition this summer? Yet this afternoon, we have heard the authentic voice of old Labour.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. We on Conservative Benches are the commuters' friend—the Labour party is the strikers' friend.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Is not the statement by the Secretary of State in complete contradiction to the remarks made by the Prime Minister during Question Time today? He was boasting about the tranquillity of the relationship with trade unions. The Secretary of State has contradicted those boasts about how well everything is going.
The Secretary of State mentions the days lost through strikes, but how about the days—a hundred times as many—lost through unemployment? What about cowboy employers—are they to have no responsibility? They are not included in the document. This announcement shows that this is a fag-end Government, who think that they are on to some sort of gimmick—but they will lose the general election.
Mr. Lang: It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that, for the past four years, while industrial action in this country has been reduced, unemployment has been falling. We are addressing the rise in industrial action in August this year and the preceding months, which reversed that trend, and in which action was focused on public sector services. That is where the public suffer most, and we are proposing this action so as to bring the public's rights into the equation.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I give a wholehearted welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement and his Green Paper on behalf of the beleaguered commuters and small businesses of my constituency. When taking representations on his Green Paper, will he reflect on the fact that, if we had accepted at face value representations from people such as Labour Members and trade unions—who will no doubt beseige his office with all sorts of false representations—we would have got nowhere over the past 17 years, and would still be stuck with the awful industrial relations record we inherited from the last Labour Government?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the industrial indicators point to the success of our industrial relations policy—improved productivity, attraction of huge inward investment, falling unemployment and all the other measures of industrial success. Unless we address the remaining specific problem of industrial action in the monopoly public sector industries, we shall continue to suffer from the growth and recovery in industrial action that will damage those successes.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is there any strike that the Secretary of State would support?
Mr. Lang: I believe that strikes should be the weapon of last resort, not of first resort. Through a series of
854
step-by-step proposals, this Government have achieved great things in industrial relations; we now intend to take another positive step in that direction.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In the entire history of British industrial relations, can the right hon. Gentleman recall any occasion on which he found the management at fault?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady was clearly not listening to my earlier answer on that subject. Management does not enjoy immunity to civil lawsuits as trade unions do. It is open to anyone to take out a lawsuit against management if it is believed to be responsible. We are concerned with the fact that trade unions, while sheltering behind immunity from civil actions, make decisions that do not take proper account of the damage they inflict on the public.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State recall that it was Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative Prime Minister, who said in reference to the Taff Vale decision—the last time that immunity was removed from industrial action—that Conservatives need not complain about the class war, because they started it? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that no one outside the House will be fooled by his talk of protecting innocent third parties, but will see his proposals for what they are—a naked class attack on the workers of this country?
Mr. Lang: I think that they will see the hon. Gentleman and his party as standing for the past, while industrial relations have made great strides forward in the past 17 years. I invite him to address the gains that have been achieved, not only for the country as a whole, but for trade union members themselves, as a result of the measures that we have introduced.
Mr. David Winnick: Does not the truth in this trade union-bashing document lie at the top of page 17, where it is made clear that the Government are totally opposed to trade unionism? Is it any surprise that the Government want to return to the industrial climate of the years before 1906, with no immunities for trade unions, sweatshops, miserable wages and no effective protection for working people? It is not trade unions that are the enemy within in Britain today—it is this wretched Government, who are the dedicated enemy of every working person in this country.
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me why we have a higher proportion of our working-age population in employment in this country than any other comparable country in Europe, and why they enjoy better living standards than ever they did under a Labour Government.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: A quiet question of fact: what legal advice has the Department had on how the courts would interpret the word "disproportionate"?
Mr. Lang: Advice within Government is, of course, private to Government, but we are confident that these proposals are workable and will be effective; that, given

855
the criteria and the guidance that will be included in the legislation, they will work effectively; and that the courts will responsible positively to them.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Have we not seen another general election ploy here, whereby the Tories set out to clobber the unions and clobber the working people of this country? How many times have we heard from Conservative Members that they do not want the minimum wage or the 48-hour directive? They do not want anything—they do not want the workers to get anything at all. The Green Paper proves that all they want to do is to keep the working people of this country down at the bottom. Some Conservative Members could not live on what some of my members are making in my constituency. I would like to see some of the Ministers live a month on some of the wages that my constituents have to live on.
Mr. Lang: What we want is a successful, expanding economy, creating new, prosperous, well-paid jobs.
Mr. Campbell: You have not got one.
Mr. Lang: That is our record of achievement, and we are determined to uphold that record.
Mr. Campbell: We are a low-paid economy; that is what you have got.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He had an opportunity to put a question. I did not hear a question from him, as a matter of fact.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Who were the authors of this document? Paragraph 1.16 on page 6 claims that many strikes
"are called before negotiation and other means of resolving disputes have been fully explored."
That is patently untrue.
Is it not the case that many strikes or industrial disputes are provoked by over-powerful and inefficient management, rather than militant trade union representatives? Was that not the case in the ScotRail disputes that the Secretary of State mentioned, and the Post Office dispute? Why, in the interests of balance, does he not seek to protect the interests and needs of employees against over-powerful employers?
Mr. Lang: In the private sector, the quality of employers and management has improved beyond recognition in recent years. As for the ScotRail dispute, 21 of the 22 train operating companies have reached a settlement on that dispute; only in ScotRail are the trade unions holding out and threatening to paralyse Scottish rail travel for five days in pursuit of an industrial dispute. I urge them to do what the other 21 companies have done—sit down and negotiate a settlement, and not put the public at risk.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I thank the Secretary of State for taking me back about 10 years to a tedious international conference at which I heard the
856
communist Minister of Labour in Poland explain why the Polish public had to be protected against democratic trade union action. Has he consulted the International Labour Organisation? At least one of his proposals will be in contravention of a convention that Britain has signed.
Mr. Lang: That is highly unlikely, but the consultation period runs for three months, and I look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I say that the Minister is going too far? These measures are an affront to liberty. They breach every fundamental principle of freedom of the individual, which many Conservative supporters in the country subscribe to. What he is doing today shows that he has completely misunderstood Conservative supporters in Britain, who feel very strongly on these issues—perhaps in a way that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand.
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand how strongly the public feel on these issues when they are left abandoned by trains whose drivers are on strike, or when they are unable to receive mail because the post is on strike. They too have rights, and those rights should be taken into account.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not reprehensible to make this further attempt to screw the trade unions, when wages are abysmally low and job insecurity is uppermost in people's mind? When will the Government realise that what is needed is not oppression and tyranny, but partnership and co-operation in industry? That is the way ahead for Britain.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and wages. Is he not aware that 150,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone have been created in the past three years? Is he not aware that wages at all levels are higher in real terms by a substantial margin than when his party was in power? There should indeed be partnership, but it should involve the public as well. They have a right to be considered in that partnership.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What does the Minister consider trade unions to be about? Are they not supposed to be involved in negotiating on behalf of their members in various areas of interest? For that they need influence, in order to get their side heard. Their means of last resort, the strike, will be taken away from them in many cases.
Mr. Lang: Too often, what should be the means of last resort is becoming the means of first resort. We are concerned to make the strike the instrument of last resort and to make sure that other factors, such as the public interest, are taken more fully into the equation.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: How can the Minister respond to a 99 per cent. fall in days lost through industrial action by complaining about excessive resort to the strike weapon? Surely the juxtaposition shows that that is simply election propaganda, rather than a proper industrial relations issue.
Mr. Lang: Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not hear me point out that strikes in public utility services, which

857
constituted 10 per cent. of the total 10 years ago, now constitute 70 per cent. of the total. That is where the problem now exists, and that is why we are addressing it.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Has the Secretary of State not understood that there are many occasions when working people, through their trade unions, stand up for their rights? Those interests and rights are complementary to those of the public. Is it not a fact that, time and again, health and safety issues affecting workers, which have been pursued with vigour by trade unions, have meant that many accidents have been avoided in our public sector, and where those representations have been ignored, tragedies have come about?
Is it not a fact that the trade unions have been a force for good in promoting the interests not only of the workers but of the general public? Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, and explain why it is good to have trade unions in some industries, but why he defends the right of some miserly, mean employers to exclude trade unions where it suits their selfish interests and not those of their competitors?
Mr. Lang: What a long and complicated question. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that health and safety considerations are high on our list of priorities and constitute one of the criteria set out in the Green Paper that should be taken into account in assessing whether a strike is disproportionate or excessive. Strikes are far more likely to damage the health and safety of the public—and, indeed, of workers—than they are likely to advance it.
Mr. Blunkett: Perhaps the Secretary of State could answer one simple question. In view of our overall concern for the user and consumer of services, does the legal advice that he has taken suggest that the London Underground dispute this summer would have met the definition of "disproportionate" or "excessive" in terms of its effects?
Mr. Lang: If these proposals had been in place at that time, my guess is that that strike would not have taken place.

Points of Order
4.38 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the Prime Minister's challenge to the comments made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), I ask whether such a challenge was justified, bearing it in mind that early-day motion 93 tabled on 29 October was on record in the House, showing that every elected representative in Northern Ireland opposed the proposals to reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three.
Madam Speaker: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman got excited when the Prime Minister gave his answer during Question Time. However, the matter he raises with me now is not a point of order but a point of argument, and I may accept only points of order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the significant point of principle as to whether hon. Members should be allowed to have their say before British troops are irrevocably committed to a dangerous situation, has the Secretary of State for Defence disclosed to you when he wishes to report to the House on the factual findings of Brigadier Jonathan Thompson and his reconnaissance team? He should report to the House so that he may hear hon. Members' comments on the subject before the Cabinet decides irrevocably to commit British forces to Zaire.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Secretary of State for Defence, or any other Secretary of State, is seeking to make a statement about Zaire today. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments yesterday, which I still have very much in mind.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall not point out that the Tories ran out of questioners halfway through the statement of the President of the Board of Trade. Did you notice that the Labour spokesman was joined by the spokesmen from the Scottish National party, the Welsh National party, the Ulster Unionists and the Liberal Democrats in opposing the statement? Is there any way of putting that fact on record?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue questions on the statement. He should have caught my eye at the appropriate time rather than seeking to use points of order in that way.

Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and any new Clauses and Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 15th November which relate to the prohibition of small firearms or to further special exemptions from the general prohibition of small firearms.)
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 18 November].
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 2

      SLAUGHTERING INSTRUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      4.41 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Clause 2 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell, or transfer a slaughtering instrument if he is duly authorised by a firearms certificate. The Secretary of State's authority will not be required for a person to have a slaughtering instrument in his possession if he is already entitled, under section 10 of the 1968 Act, to possess it without a firearms certificate. That will allow a slaughterman licensed under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 or the proprietor of an abattoir to continue using a slaughtering instrument as part of his normal duties.
      For many years, the firearms Acts have exempted licensed professional slaughterers from the need to hold certificates and we propose that that should be allowed to continue. The instruments that they use—many of which have a captive bolt—pose no threat to the protection of the public. We believe that in those cases it is right to allow the chief officer of police the discretion to grant section 1 certificates to such people. He will be able to assess each case on its merits.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) is the Government Whip on duty, it seems appropriate to ask about starting pistols used at athletics meetings. There are all sorts of anomalies; will that one be covered?
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of the Committee's discussions. The issue of starting pistols will be debated under one of the clauses—I think it is clause 4—that we shall discuss this afternoon.
      We believe that it is right that the chief officer should be able to assess each case on its merits and that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require people in this category to obtain the Secretary of State's separate authority.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: It is essential that such people are able to possess and use the appropriate instruments, and we support the special
      860
      exemption. As to bureaucracy, it seems a little elaborate to include two clauses—clauses 2 and 3—that appear to say the same thing. Perhaps my hon. Friend might consider tidying up the legislation on Report.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      FIREARMS USED FOR HUMANE KILLING OF ANIMALS
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: Clause 3 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 as inserted by clause 1 of the Bill, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm held on a firearms certificate that is subject to a condition that it is to be used only for the humane killing of animals. That would cover not only vets and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals officials but others, including hunt servants, whom the chief constable is satisfied have a genuine need for a handgun for that purpose. That may involve producing evidence to prove that need.
      Vets and others have long used handguns for the humane killing of animals, and it would be wrong to expect or require them to change their practices. We accepted the argument that the alternatives available, such as rifles, shotguns and tranquilliser darts, would not be as effective. The advantages of using pistols to put animals out of their misery are obvious. The circumstances of the exemption are clear and only professionals or other experienced persons will be able to prove their need to the chief officer.
      We believe that in those cases it is right that the chief officer of police should have the discretion to grant section 1 certificates and that each case should be assessed on its merits. We believe that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require such people to obtain the Secretary of State's separate authority.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does the exemption have the agreement—which seems to be implied—of the British Veterinary Association? Has that group been consulted and has it agreed to the exemption?
      Miss Widdecombe: The organisation has made its views known and it is beyond me why it would not agree to our proposal, given that vets clearly must be exempt.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      RACES AT ATHLETIC MEETINGS
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: Clause 4 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority, under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm that is held on a firearms certificate with the condition that it is to be

      861
      used only for starting races at athletic meetings. The clause also provides that a person other than a certificate holder, such as a race official, may possess a firearm at an athletic meeting in order to start races.
      Most starting pistols—for example, those commonly used at school sports days—do not have an open barrel and are simply designed to make a bang. They are not classed as firearms and the legislation would not affect them. According to the British Athletics Federation, major athletics events require starting guns that are classed as firearms. For technical reasons, starters require a gun that can produce a very loud bang and a highly visible flash from the muzzle. Special blank ammunition is used for that purpose. The visible flash is required to notify the manual timekeepers who are required to act as a back-up in case the electronic systems fail.
      Such accurate timekeeping is essential only for races where international, national or regional records will be set and such records are recognised only when a BAF starter is present. We understand that a .22 pistol would not be suitable for that task as it would not produce either a bright enough flash or a loud enough bang. A firearms certificate for a starting gun will not allow the possession of live ammunition as race starters require only blank rounds.
      We believe that it is right that the chief officer of police should have the discretion to assess each case on its, merits and that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to do it any other way.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      TROPHIES OF WAR
      Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37, after `possession', insert
      'and if the firearm is deactivated or disabled from firing in a prescribed manner'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 37, at end add—
      `(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument.'.
      Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Sir Michael—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I am Chairman of the Committee.
      Mr. Henderson: I apologise to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your correction.
      Clause 5 exempts from the provisions of the Bill trophies of war that were acquired before 1946, which have been authorised by certificate.
      When I first read clause 5, I assumed that it related to what would probably be described by a layperson as an antique gun—a gun that would not be very usable nowadays, and one that had been acquired over time. I have discovered that that is not so and that many guns
      862
      that are trophies of war are essentially the same in design as guns that are manufactured today and have the same lethal powers.
      I do not believe that there is any great risk from many of the holders of such trophies of war. Most of them are very responsible people and they retain such weapons to remind them of the past and of their family's contribution to war efforts. The danger is that such weapons might fall into the wrong hands and that ammunition might then be provided from another source, thus turning them into lethal weapons.
      When hon. Members agree that something must be done quickly, there is a sometimes the temptation to ignore detail. We can all be guilty of that, but I hope that the Government will acknowledge that potential danger. If they do not accept the wording of our amendments, perhaps they will consider another form of words that would take on board the points that I have made.
      The definition of a trophy of war is not particularly tight. I quote from Home Office guidelines, "Firearms Law: Evidence to the Police", which say:
      "All persons retaining trophies of war must hold firearm certificates, although no fee is payable,"—
      and we all understand that.
      "In general, the term 'trophy' may be interpreted fairly widely when persons of good repute wish to retain possession of a firearm as a personal memento without the ammunition necessary for its use … Weapons issued or captured during the 1939–1945 war and subsequently are Government property and their retention is not permitted."
      We are not talking about legally held trophies of war from the 1939–45 war. I am told by the police that it is possible that many equivalents to trophies of war obtained by individuals have been given certificates that apply to guns manufactured between 1939 and 1946. Either a blind eye has been turned by the Ministry of Defence or the police were told originally that the gun was manufactured before 1939. I am told that many of them were manufactured between 1939 and 1945, often in Europe and often brought back as a memento of various campaigns during the second world war.
      Other trophies of war manufactured before 1939 are legitimately held. I quote from Jane's Infantry Weapons, which says that the 9 mm Browning high-power pistol, which was the same gun used by Hamilton at Dunblane
      "was designed in 1925 by John M. Browning and granted a US Patent in February 1927.
      The High Power has been manufactured"—
      on licence—
      "in Belgium by F. N. Herstal SA, near Liège.
      It was in service in Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Netherlands and Romania."
      It has been used since and is still in production in India. As we all know, it is a lethal weapon. I believe that if it got into the wrong hands it could still be used by a maniac such as Hamilton to cause destruction and devastation in a community. The Government must address that possibility.
      Another gun that is common as a trophy of war-again it was manufactured before 1939 but was still in production up until 1985—is the .45 model 1911.A1 automatic pistol. It is a classic pistol used by the US army. Essentially, the design has remained the same. It would take a firearms expert to draw a distinction between one

      863
      of the models made pre-1939 and one made after that date. The point that I am trying to make is that guns are available—this relates to guns above .22 calibre—that are not antiques but are lethal weapons and are more or less the same as guns that are available today, and have been rightly classified as trophies of war. These potential weapons are not covered by clause 5. I hope that the Government will accept that there needs to be some way of ensuring that such guns are not used for purposes for which they were not intended.
      It would be wrong to have a general policy of deactivating guns, for all the arguments that were exchanged across the Floor in yesterday's debate. If guns were to be dismantled, it would be too easy for a part kept in one place to be associated with another part kept elsewhere. In relation to trophies of war, however, because we are talking about a relatively small number of guns, it would be possible to make them safe by deactivating them. That should be done without causing damage to the gun. I hope that the Government will look at ways in which that could be achieved.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: The whole world of guns, weapons and collectors would be absolutely delighted if there was any way of knowing how to deactivate a gun without damaging it, as that would be a solution to many problems.
      Mr. Henderson: I hope that it will be possible to examine that. Lord Cullen suggested, in paragraph 9.94 of his report, that one area for discussion might be a barrel lock system. I am no gun expert and I do not know whether it would be possible to use such a device to deactivate a gun safely and without damaging it, but the House has an obligation to not only the people of Dunblane but the people of this country to take every step to ensure that legally held guns do not get into the wrong hands. I have mentioned a potential loophole; I hope that the Government will accept that it exists. It affects only a small number of people, but we must deal with it. The danger is not from the holders of trophies of war but that those trophies of war may get into the wrong hands and be used for purposes for which they were not intended.
      I ask the Government to accept the point that I have made. If they accept the Opposition's amendments, that would be satisfactory. If they believe that our amendments are technically flawed, I should be happy to co-operate with them in finding another way to address the problem.
      5 pm
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: The effect of the amendment is abundantly clear and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has explained lucidly what is in his mind. If he adopts the view that there shall be no dangerous handguns that could be fired if the right ammunition was obtained illegally, I understand his point of view. But we are talking about weapons that are held for some historic, personal or domestic reason.
      Next Sunday, I shall be attending the 100th birthday party of Corporal D'Arcy Jones, who will celebrate his birthday today week. On 8 November 1917, Corporal Jones took part in the last mounted cavalry charge to capture guns at a place called Huj near Beersheba.
      864
      My father led that charge. The casualties were 50 per cent. and of the nine officers four were killed and two were wounded. I think that the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was either present or a member of the regiment at the time. It was a famous historic action during which 20,000 Turks took to their heels and fled down the hill. I know that the revolver of one of the officers who took part in that historic charge is in private ownership. It would be a great tragedy if, even though that weapon is kept in the greatest security, its firing pin had to be sawn off and a bolt put down the barrel, or whatever was required.
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North will learn much more about firearms as the Bill progresses. One of the difficulties of deactivation is that previously nefarious individuals have de-deactivated weapons. In other words, firing pins have been restored and barrels drilled out, putting the weapons back in order. Deactivation is usually certificated by the proof house and it is a monumental destruction of the item. I am talking not just about historic pieces, but about works of art, which can be used. It would be a great tragedy if they had to be deactivated to the satisfaction of the proof house.
      Mr. Henderson: I was referring to relatively modern guns, principally those manufactured in the 20th century. Older guns could be classified under the Firearms Act 1968 as antiques and so would not be covered by the Bill.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: With the right ammunition, unless it has been neglected, anything manufactured in the 20th century is likely to be a pretty useful piece of equipment to anyone who wishes to use it in that way. It is no good arguing against that. It is a fact of life that everyone accepts.
      As far as I know, this matter has not upset chief constables or caused any difficulty. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us if it has. The effect of deactivating guns is to destroy their commercial value. It also destroys the romantic, historic and emotional connection. I realise that there are those who cannot understand why anyone would feel that for a gun, but people do. As it stands, the law is completely satisfactory. The guns are held without permission for ammunition and without any intention to use them. The law already covers the point and I hope that my hon. Friend will reject the amendment.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: How many guns are held under licence as trophies of war? Such information would give us some insight into whether a problem exists. Is it correct that a person with a certificate authorising the possession of such a weapon cannot use that weapon as a firearm? That would be an argument in favour of deactivating it.
      I understand what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has just said and the various reasons that he gave. However, we must consider the amendment seriously. It is correct and proper that there should be exceptions to a law. Nothing can be absolute. But we should always be circumspect in establishing such exceptions, because the more there are, the more difficult is the law to understand and the easier it is to circumvent it because there are more loopholes, bringing the law into disrepute. Therefore, we should try to restrict the exemptions.

      865
      We could not possibly disagree with the first three exemptions, but I am not so sure about the exemption for a trophy of war, unless it is deactivated. We need not consider the problems with deactivation that we debated yesterday, and temporary deactivation, allowing a gun to be put back together and used. We are now considering permanent deactivation. There must be methods of doing that that do not significantly damage the gun, other than making it impossible to use it again. Reactivating guns is a specialty, but that is another hurdle to be gone through before anyone can use such a weapon in a criminal act.
      This is an area for concern and I would be grateful if the Minister would provide the information for which I have asked and consider the points that I have made.
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: We understand that, in a number of instances, the attraction in retaining a trophy of war is the fact that, with the right information, one could shoot someone with it. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said that people such as me who are not part of the gun fraternity would not understand that part of the attraction of having a trophy of war is to be able to fantasise about loading it, taking it out and shooting at something or other.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin indicated dissent.
      Mr. O'Neill: That was the point that the hon. Gentleman made, which he suggested we could not understand. Part of the attraction of a trophy of war is that, with the right ammunition, such a gun could be used. That is what the hon. Gentleman was saying and that was part of the argument that he advanced against deactivation.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have known the hon. Gentleman a long time and I know that he has a fanciful imagination and turn of phrase, but I must refute what he says What I said is on the record and he can read it. I said that a fine weapon is valued for its workmanship and, in this instance, for its history and its romantic attachment, whether that be the result of a gallant action, some war story in which it played a part, or whatever. That is what I said and it is on the record.
      Mr. O'Neill: We may have to judge it on the record. I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, (Mr. Henderson) not being a member of the gun fraternity, might not understand the attraction of a weapon and its lack of attraction if it was somehow artificially deactivated.
      Is the Minister satisfied that such weapons will be held securely in the home of the licence holder? Let us not forget that a collector of armaments will probably be known within his area and could be a magnet to burglars, especially if it was understood that some of the weapons could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has already said, be used quickly.
      What is important is not just whether such weapons should be deactivated or whether that is desirable or possible, but the conditions under which they are held by the appropriate people. I can well imagine that if anyone is to be entrusted with such weapons, their owners are the
      866
      kind of people who should be, but what worries me is those in the community who see them as a potential for burglary and theft.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be too much of a pedant, but anyone who acquired weapons before 1 January 1946 is likely to have done three score years and ten. Does the clause refer to weapons acquired by dad, grandad or great grandad? Perhaps some other wording should cover this.
      I make no apology for returning to the issue of money. I am a little wiser than I was yesterday afternoon. I asked some questions in yesterday's debate, as a result of which a dealer got in touch with me and told me that many such weapons are enormously valuable. If they are surrendered at anything like market price, the figures involved could be many thousands of pounds.
      For technical reasons and for reasons of history, some trophies of war are extremely expensive. If owners were unwilling to have them unlocked and debilitated in some way or another, they would presumably have to surrender them. If so, what compensation would be paid?
      Sir Cranley Onslow: I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The clause refers to the acquisition of a trophy of war before a certain date. That implies that when the individual who acquired it has left this world, title passes away entirely, and is not inheritable under the terms of the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate. I have to say at the outset of my speech that, sadly, I must urge the House to resist the amendments if they are pressed.
      Before I deal with the main part of the amendments and reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), I shall pick up various important points that were made in the debate. I am sure that, no matter what view one takes of the Bill, the House will want to congratulate Corporal D'Arcy Jones on his 100th birthday. We wish him a happy birthday and hope that it is a wonderful occasion.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) raised an important point about inheritance. As the Bill is currently phrased, it does not provide for inheritance. However, we intend to table an amendment at a later stage, which will enable the heirs of people who have held trophies of war likewise to be exempt. As we propose to exempt both owners of trophies of war and their heirs, the issue of compensation does not arise. I hope that the hon. Members are reassured on that.
      The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) raised a relevant and important point. He is right that it is not merely the conditions in which such weapons are possessed that is important—I shall deal with that matter in a moment—but the security under which they are held. The police already have the power to specify the conditions under which a person is allowed to hold such guns. Clearly, an ancient weapon that is kept in a box in an attic by a widow does not cause the same concerns as a more modern weapon that is capable of being fired and is kept in more overt conditions in a house. The police can take account of particular circumstances and can specify conditions. They already have that power—we are not giving it to them in the Bill. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

      867
      The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked several questions. In particular, he asked whether I could put a figure on the number of guns that we propose to exempt. The figures are not centrally collected, but they are known by individual police forces and can be obtained from them for a given area. As far as we are aware, no chief police officer has ever notified us of any problems involving such guns.
      I regret that I cannot support the amendments for two reasons. First, deactivation is a red herring. For a gun to be classified as deactivated, extremely strict standards must be applied. It is not enough for bits and pieces to be temporarily removed: the gun must be permanently deactivated. A permanently deactivated gun is not caught by the firearms Acts, so would be irrelevant. A specification to exempt deactivated guns would be utterly redundant. It would have no meaning under the terms of the firearms Acts.
      We do not want to introduce as a condition the requirement to disable. I say that, but it is already possible for the police to specify that dismantling or partial dismantling must occur as a condition of the gun being held. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North should consult the report of the debate on 12 November, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that he has two world war one handguns, and that he keeps them dismantled at the police's request.
      Under current legislation, the police are able to specify that a weapon must be dismantled. That often depends on the same issues that are raised when considering whether guns are being kept securely—how old the guns are, whether they are capable of being fired, who is keeping them and under what conditions and whether dismantling would be sensible. I believe that it is better to leave those matters to the police. If the amendments are pressed—I hope that they will not be—I urge the Committee to resist them.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Before my hon. Friend finishes her speech, may I return to the subject of trophies of war? When she mentioned the concession that heirs will be allowed to keep such guns, everyone nodded and thought that it was a good idea. But if we thought about it, we would realise that it could lead to logically absurd situations. Presumably, I could keep my father's gun or my grandfather's. Could I keep my great uncle's gun? Could my great uncle will his gun to someone else? Why should people be allowed to keep trophies of war that have been left to them in a will, whereas other people will not be allowed to do so? If the Home Office makes concessions on what is an intrusive and confiscatory measure, it will soon get into deep water. That is the problem with this sort of legislation.
      Miss Widdecombe: I could almost be forgiven for thinking that my hon. Friend was arguing against the concession. What I said was crystal clear: I said that the heirs would be exempt—not the sons, grandsons or great grandsons. A great nephew or a third cousin six times removed could be an heir. When we introduce our amendment, we will make our intentions clear. It is a trifle
      868
      unfair for my hon. Friend to criticise the concession, as he does not yet have the details of it. I have given him an idea of my general thinking.
      Mr. Dalyell: I shall be more than a trifle unfair, because I think that there are other problems with the magic date of 1946. What about trophies of the Korean war? To my certain knowledge, some of my national service contemporaries brought trophies back from the Korean war. God knows what has happened to them. Has the date of 1946 been plucked out of the air?
      Miss Widdecombe: We must have a definition. When we introduce our amendment on trophies of war, hon. Members will have an opportunity to propose other amendments. There was a proposal to tighten the definition and to change the date to 1939. We shall carefully consider whether the definition is consistent with and coherent across different legislation, and whether it is right.
      Mr. Dalyell: This is quite important. Presumably, certificates would have to be produced for possession of a gun acquired before 1946. What about trophies of war that were acquired back in the late 1940s and 1950s? We are going back a very long way. What standards of proof will be expected? I do not want to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but I believe that the provision is fraught with difficulties.
      Mr. Henderson: I did not really understand the Minister's point about deactivated guns. It is a bit like asking, "When is a gun not a gun?" It was suggested that a gun that was fully operational at one time could be in a different state as a trophy of war. We all acknowledge that a "trophy of war" licence would not be given for such a gun to be used with ammunition, but there is still a danger that it could fall into the wrong hands and then be loaded with ammunition. That is particularly likely in the case of the relatively modern guns that I mentioned earlier. I do not think that deactivating a gun of that kind means that it is no longer a gun: it could be reactivated.
      Miss Widdecombe: No.
      Mr. Henderson: I think that it could, but that is a technical point.
      Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some technical advice. As I said, deactivation is now extremely strictly prescribed. It would be much easier to build a gun from scratch than to try to reactivate a gun that had been deactivated according to current specifications. The meaning is pretty precise. In any event, deactivated guns fall outwith the terms of the Bill, and we would be talking about nothing if we wrote them in.
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for the Minister's advice, but I am not sure that it convinces me. Common sense tells me that if something can be deactivated, it can be reactivated. Many engineers would welcome the challenge of reactivating a gun and returning it to the condition in which it was when it was manufactured and first in use.

      869
      I think that the Minister is saying that she agrees that there is a potential loophole—that she recognises that, in some circumstances, some trophies of war could become dangerous to the public. In recognising that, she has acknowledged that sometimes the police will have to say, "Your trophy of war must be kept in a particular circumstance before it can be given an appropriate licence." If the Minister recognises that, she should seriously consider saying it in the Bill.
      Miss Widdecombe: Primary legislation already states that the police can specify the circumstances in which guns must be kept, either in terms of their physical condition—which means dismantling—or in terms of the secure conditions that surround their keeping. The decision is made on the merits of each case. There would be little point in trying to introduce blanket legislation affecting a number of circumstances to which the application was not appropriate.
      Mr. Henderson: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her advice, but this advice does not convince me either. There is a need to be specific. The Government must think again, and for that reason I may not press the amendment.
      We should recall the position in which the police found themselves in central Scotland when they believed that, under the existing law, they would fail in court if Hamilton challenged their decision to deny him a certificate. We could be in the same position in this instance. Someone who held a trophy of war and believed that the law did not give the chief constable powers to be specific and to make a particular requirement could challenge the chief constable if he thought that the cost would be disproportionate.
      Miss Widdecombe: Although this Bill does not make that specific, the existing law does. There would be no ground for such a challenge.
      Mr. Henderson: I understand the point on which the Minister is attempting to convince the Committee, but she has not convinced me, and I am not sure that she has convinced the Committee. She has accepted that there is a loophole. I hope that, in the light of this discussion and the confusion that exists in the minds of hon. Members—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members are confused. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) looks very confused. We need clarification.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister find out from the Scottish Office precisely what the state of the law is? In 1988, Thomas Hamilton came to my surgery. His visit was prompted by a constituent, Mrs. Paula Morebay of Linlithgow, who telephoned to say that she was extremely concerned about her son being taken to a camp by a group leader whom she did not like and whom she distrusted. It was so urgent that I asked the police to go and see my constituent. Detective-Sergeant Anderson then went to see Hamilton.
      The police reported that they would have liked to do something about the matter, but could not. That is the story that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others learned 10 years later, and it constitutes the guts of the issue. The man Hamilton
      870
      came to my surgery and to my house. We would dearly have liked the police to do something about it, but they did not have the power—or thought that they did not.
      Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's supportive emphasis of what I consider to be a real point. I hope that the Minister will accept that some Conservative Members are also confused, and, having reflected on the issues that we have discussed, will table an amendment. If she does not, it is possible that, after further consultation, I shall want to do so.
      Miss Widdecombe: The minds of Conservative Members are models of clarity and lucidity. We are not confused. I cannot speak for Opposition Members, but I do not think that there is any confusion on Conservative Benches about the current provisions in the law. The hon. Member for Linlithgow did exhibit some confusion, but, to be fair, he had been absent for part of the discussion.
      Mr. Dalyell: No, I had not.
      Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was at the other end of the Chamber.
      Two pieces of law were discussed. The hon. Gentleman raised one: the conditions for licensing, which, as he well knows, we are tightening. The piece of law that I was discussing was that which allows the police to specify the circumstances in which a gun may be kept, in terms of either its physical state or the security provisions surrounding it. I do not think that I can say anything further to dispel the confusion, if indeed it exists.
      I will, however, clarify a few points for the hon. Gentleman. I said that we would reflect on these. As all weapons taken in war since 1946 are deemed to be the property of Her Majesty's Government, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised will probably not have as much impact as he may have thought; but I undertake to examine the position, and make certain that that is the case. He also mentioned guns that were purchased a long time ago, standards of proof and so forth. Certificates are renewed every five years, and the same tests are applied on each occasion.
      Mr. Leigh: I wish to make just one point. It is clear in my mind now that the law is itself quite clear: anyone can be made an heir, and therefore anyone can sell any trophy of war to whoever he likes by signing a simple affidavit. The gun will then come on to the open market. Trophies of war will be kept on the open market, and will be specific items for sale and resale. [Interruption.] If that is not the case, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me.
      Miss Widdecombe: We are talking about wills and inheritance, not about deeds of gift. Wills are provable; wills are held; wills can be referred to.
      Mr. Henderson: I think that there is now adequate evidence of confusion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, to enable the whole House perhaps to return to the issue on another occasion.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      SHOT PISTOLS
      '.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a shot pistol if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire such a firearm subject to a condition limiting its use to the destruction of pests, vermin or rabbits.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, however long one studies these complex matters, it is extremely easy to become confused. I know that her clear mind will weave its way through the maze of legislation, but I fully sympathise with the confusion of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). In the next week or two, he will learn a lot not only about the law, but about firearms. If any of the British Shooting Sports Council's experts could offer him assistance, I would be happy to make that available for two reasons: his amendments would be better and it would save everyone much time if they were clear.
      Mr. Henderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his colleagues in the said body have already, on a very voluntary basis, given me a significant amount of briefing.
      5.30 pm
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: The important thing is to have the right advice and not all that is offered.
      To return to the new clause, I confess to not having heard of a shot pistol until a few hours ago, but I understand a few hundred such weapons are kept, usually for the destruction of pests in and around buildings, near pens and in confined spaces where longer and more powerful weapons might be dangerous. If the new clause were to be incorporated, I would not be opening some great door for criminal activity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister might take a sympathetic view of this special class of vermin and rabbit-killing weapon.
      Miss Widdecombe: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) to withdraw the new clause. That does not mean that I reject it outright. It means merely that I appreciate and sympathise with what it is intended to achieve, but would welcome the opportunity to consider whether I can draw it more tightly and bring back a more restricted version later in the consideration of the Bill.
      A shot pistol is a smooth-bore pistol usually using .410 cartridges and specifically designed, as my hon. Friend has correctly said, for vermin control inside barns
      872
      and outbuildings. The relatively low power of small-shot cartridges minimises damage to the fabric of the building. It must be obvious, even to confused Committee members, that it is much easier to use something that scatters shot to a low power in a barn than a shotgun, which could blow away part of the barn as well as the animal. It should also be clear that, where there are many animals, something that scatters shot is better than having to take individual shots. Therefore, we need to consider seriously whether there should be an exemption for shot pistols.
      I do not want to exempt all shot pistols from the prohibition in the blanket way that the new clause suggests. The purpose is reasonable. In some circumstances, a shot pistol is obviously the most humane and effective way and, if a good reason can be produced for possession of such a weapon, it can be left to the discretion of the chief officer of police to grant a firearms certificate for that purpose. Therefore, I am prepared to consider a tight exemption to the general prohibition for shot pistols. I want to consider further the best way of achieving that. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will trust me to table a Government amendment, which he will be able to accept or to oppose in due course.
      Mr. Henderson: There is something in what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) says. Clearly, there is a need for people in the country and perhaps even in the city to deal with vermin, but I hope that, when the Minister considers this, her proposal will be sufficiently tight to ensure that there is no abuse. One would not want this to be used as a back-door method of retaining Magnums. We all know—even I know—that if people tried to shoot a rabbit with a Magnum, there would be no rabbit left, but, for someone who was involved in target shooting with such a weapon, this would be one way of trying to ensure that he could retain it in future. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when she considers the matter.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to give that undertaking. It is precisely because I want to consider how tightly we can draw the new clause, while at the same time honouring the principle behind it, that I am inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare to withdraw it.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: A .410 will never be used for target shooting. It falls under the firearms requirements because of its length. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I can assure I always trust. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 5

      EXEMPTION FOR COLLECTORS
      '.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have possession of any short firearm made before 1st January 1946 if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to hold that firearm as a collector's item and not for use, or if he is a registered firearms dealer.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

      873
      Let me begin by explaining why I did not move new clause 4. The items in that clause fall better in the category of collectors' items and antiques. The sort of cartridges concerned, few of which still exist, are collectors' items. Few exist because, apparently, they used to go off in people's pocket.
      Exemption for collectors is an extremely important part of the legislation. In his speech on Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary conceded that a special case must be made for those items. I recognise that the precise phrasing of new clause 5 is unlikely to satisfy the Government and I do not intend to press it in its detail. It is a vehicle for an explanatory debate so that we can learn a little more about the Government's thinking before, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister tables the appropriate new clauses to deal with the matter.
      New clause 5 uses the approach of an amendment created in section 5 of the 1968 Act by the firearms regulations of 1992 in response to the European weapons directive, which says that, subject to important limitations
      "the authority of the Secretary of State shall not be required by virtue of section 5 of this Act for any person to have in his possession, or to purchase, acquire, transfer, sell or transfer, any prohibited weapon or ammunition if he is authorised by a certificate under this Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon or ammunition subject to the condition that he does so only for the purpose of its being kept or exhibited as part of a collection."
      New clause 5, however, is wider as it does not require the collector to have a section 5 or museum certificate.
      New clause 5 is also wider in relation to the Home Secretary's suggestion, in particular with regard to pre-1919 guns of 9 mm calibre and handguns manufactured between 1919 and 1939. I shall not quote the Home Secretary in detail, but he made sympathetic noises, based on the fact that those fine weapons have been used, are treasured, loved and cosseted for their workmanship, value and collectability and are fine target guns. He concluded by saying:
      "Under those proposals, pistols in the relevant categories would be subject to stringent restrictions. Their owners would have a choice. They could keep their guns securely at home on the condition that they were never fired,"—
      I assume that no ammunition would be allowed either—
      "or they could keep and fire them at the national shooting centre at Bisley."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c 186.]
      The definitions of collectible weapons and of those that are exempted were dealt with in both the previous Acts. Firearms legislation is a terrible business, as we must constantly refer to the old Acts and the new Bill. Those hon. Members who will serve on the Standing Committee will need to have all those documents in front of them.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to our intentions, and can help. Bearing in mind the fact that the Home Secretary has already made a firm statement on the matter, it would be most helpful to those in the trade and the business to know the fine details.
      Sir Anthony Durant: I support the new clause. A number of people make the collection of antique guns a close hobby. Indeed, I have a constituent who does that. He collects the guns, but he has no intention of firing them. The guns are very valuable. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already raised the question of costs. Selling the guns will be expensive, as some of them are very, very old.
      874
      I understand that the Home Office has received advice from Mr. Davis Penn of the Imperial War museum on what are and what are not antiques, so some formula is available. Even if the wording of the new clause is not exactly what my hon. Friend the Minister wants, I hope that she will take the point that we are trying to make and that the Home Secretary has already conceded. I hope that the sort of people I have described will have the opportunity to continue to pursue the honourable hobby of collecting antique guns.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), I have been approached on the matter of gun collections, not least by the historic arms resource centre at Bisley camp. In addition, great concern has been expressed by those involved in the antiques and museum curators world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter carefully and that the Government will be prepared to table suitable amendments in Standing Committee. It is clear that a number of people are perfectly legitimately involved in the collection of what is, after all, part of our British heritage.
      It is important that we all remember what the Bill is intended to achieve—in other words, what mischief it is intended to correct. I felt that I should find out a great deal more about the matter and I was fortunate enough to visit Bisley, as a guest of the National Rifle Association, last weekend—the day before the rally at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) spoke, as many of us saw on national television news. While at Bisley, I saw the importance of its antique weapons collections.
      It is important to remember that, if the mischief that the Bill is intended to prevent is the misuse of weapons, any exemptions that allow weapons to be kept when they are not being fired, or are being fired in controlled circumstances on the historic ranges at Bisley, might be acceptable and certainly would not go against the aim of the Bill.
      5.45 Pm
      I understand from those involved in the historic arms resource centre that a large number of weapons are used in the National Rifle Association open competition—what is known as the Trafalgar meeting—in October. I am told that it is the de facto national championship. Of just under 1,900 event entries at the last Trafalgar meeting, more than 850 were for historic pistols. Only about 50 of those would be of .22 calibre. Therefore, a large inroad would be made into the use of historic weapons at that important meeting.
      I do not want to take up any more of the time of the Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that he wanted this to be a short explanatory debate to determine whether the Government might be prepared to table suitable amendments at a later date. Therefore, in conclusion, I want to direct my hon. Friend the Minister's mind to the historic reconstructions undertaken by the English Civil War Society and the Sealed Knot, which are hugely important. I hope that that matter is being taken care of.
      Miss Widdecombe: There was full discussion on muzzle loading yesterday, when I gave a clear

      875
      undertaking to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He asked me whether the Sealed Knot could take it that it had nothing to worry about and I gave him a one-word answer—yes. I am delighted to put that on the record again today.
      However, the new clause goes well beyond that matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) for saying that he will not press it because, without wishing to be too disagreeable, I have to say that it is not acceptable in its current form.
      The firearms which the new clause is designed to exempt are not very old and for the most part are little different technically from modern handguns. Therefore, as currently drafted, it would be a major loophole in the proposed controls. However, I want to give my hon. Friends some reassurance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already said that we are considering actively and sympathetically how we might exempt historic handguns from the provisions of the Bill.
      Historic handguns manufactured before 1919 and, in some cases, before 1939, which are not fired, will be able to be kept at home by owners on a firearms certificate. If we can agree with the police and the Bisley authorities the details of their proposals for the firing of historic handguns, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on 12 November, that will allow most owners of such guns to be able to keep them legitimately on a firearms certificate.
      The details of our proposals are still under consideration. However, I fully accept that there is an historic angle to collections. If it is possible to make exemptions without producing the sort of loophole that the new clause sadly produces, we shall table an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised a point of law when he referred to the 1992 regulations. He was right to say that there are a number of Acts, all of which are interrelated and need to be referred to regularly in order to understand the current proposals. The 1992 regulations simply enacted requirements of the European Community weapons directive, which did not require the Government to make any particular impositions. The collectors provision does not apply to weapons that are prohibited under section 5(1).
      Mr. Dalyell: Who will do the actual administrative work on all the exemptions? It is a major logistics exercise—and logistics exercises are extremely costly. In addition, in many cases involving old collections, a certain amount of expertise is required. Few people are in a position to speak with authority. It is all very well for us, sitting on green Benches, to say that this, that and the other will be done, but who will do it? Who has the knowledge to do it? Those who have are rather rare people.
      Miss Widdecombe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we already require the police to take decisions on the merits of individual cases. That will continue. Obviously, the guidance, provisions and details that will be introduced during the passage of the Bill will be based on the best expert advice that we can obtain. I
      876
      am sure that it will be thoroughly tested by those who are giving technical advice to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. With respect, I do not actually think that things will be quite as complex as he suggests once the definitions are made clear and transparent and the details brought forward. I would ask him to suspend judgment until that time. It is, of course, open to him at any time to ask what sort of advice any particular provision would entail and how it would be enacted.
      Mr. O'Neill: Would the police be recompensed for the amount of work that might be entailed? One can envisage a constabulary having to have one or—perhaps—two resident experts and that the certification would involve a fair amount of administration. I get the impression at the moment that there is no suggestion of a charge being made for such a service. I fully accept the Minister's intentions in this area—she is trying to meet a legitimate concern—but please let us not have the chief constables coming to us to say that such a service will represent a disproportionate cost and that, therefore, other aspects of the police service will be put at a disadvantage, policemen will be taken off the beat, or whatever.
      Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman hypothesises about resident experts and all the rest of it. He has been in the House long enough to know that Ministers are most unlikely to commit resources to hypotheses.
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I would like to be quite clear about whether the hon. Lady is giving way.
      Miss Widdecombe: I wish to facilitate the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
      Mr. Dalyell: I just wonder how many people at Maidstone police station know much about the matter.
      Miss Widdecombe: I shall ask people at Maidstone police station exactly how they deal with the things with which they already have to deal under the current law. I am sure that the response will be: "Efficiently, without great drama and effectively."
      Sir Cranley Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her response to the amendment. I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that a number of people in Surrey know a lot about rifles, pistols and handguns generally, and there should be no difficulty in obtaining expert advice from them. They are well skilled, extremely courteous and efficient in the way in which they have dealt with affairs involving shooting at Bisley over a number of years.
      I declare an interest as a member of the council of the National Rifle Association. I am glad to hear that the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are indeed to be carried through and that we can look forward to seeing the form in which the legislation will come before us. Although I did not have the advantage of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) of talking at length on the subject of historic arms when I was at Bisley on Sunday—it was pouring with rain and not an occasion for a lengthy

      877
      conversation in any case—I know that there is active interest in helping out with the question of the firing of historic weapons. Careful preparation is obviously needed to ensure that the physical security is adequate and that there is no hitch or glitch in bringing in the new system that my hon. Friend the Minister has promised that we shall see. I earnestly hope that she will press forward with her discussions with the Bisley experts and that the necessary steps will be taken in good time so that the due meeting can take place as scheduled.
      Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that she recognises the significance of the potential loophole, although I must admit some interesting images came to mind of members of Her Majesty's constabulary understudying at the "Antiques Roadshow" in seeking to identify some of the weapons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has pointed out, there is the whole question of whether charges would have to be made to have accredited experts evaluate guns, as hon. Members have recognised that such people exist.
      Part of the debate has echoed some of the discussion on amendment No. 4, which related to trophies of war. This debate has expanded the recognition that some older weapons can be used in a lethal manner. No one is suggesting that people, for purposes of antiquity and collection, are operating in conditions other than those of common sense and good reason, but it is defined that collecting is a good reason for holding a firearm. If large-calibre shot firearms were exempted—even if they were manufactured quite some time ago—they could create quite a major loophole.
      When the matter is being considered at a later stage, I ask the Government to take into account the fact that not all those who could have access to such weapons would be the people who should have legitimate access. There is always the danger of those who do not have common sense and the good of society at heart getting hold of such weapons—not least because the issue of ammunition is significant. As I understand, it is possible for the ammunition of other weapons to be used in antique weapons. What is more, those who have expertise in firearms are perfectly capable of manufacturing ammunition at home. If that were not so, institutions such as Bisley would not exist. It is therefore possible to rearm such weapons and create ammunition for them.
      I do not think that we should glide over too easily the question of the administrative burden that would be created. We are conscious of the fact that Her Majesty's constabulary has rather a lot on its plate at the moment, and the Bill will rightly put a greater onus on the police. It is very important, therefore, that we do not put undue pressure on the police with regard not only to administration but to the raising of their levels of expertise in analysing such weapons and assessing whether they are liable to covered by the proposed Act.
      Although I welcome the Minister's recognition of the possibility and danger of a loophole being created by the new clause, I ask her to take into account more seriously the points that have been made by my hon. Friends. We look forward to the Government tabling a more
      878
      considered amendment at a later stage. At that point, I hope that we shall have a further opportunity for debate at quite some length.
      Miss Widdecombe: I can assure the hon. Lady that, of course, we shall take cognisance of the need not to create a large loophole when we are considering the issue of historic weapons and what may or may not be classified under that heading. Indeed, it is for that reason that I have found the new clause too wide and insufficiently tightly drawn for me to accept.
      Since the issue of administrative burdens and charges has been raised several times, perhaps it deserves rather closer consideration. First, we are talking about people who already have a firearms certificate. That is important to understand. Secondly, there is already a standard charge for a firearms certificate. As I understand, £56 is charged for the granting of a certificate and £46 for its renewal. Those charges are intended to cover police costs.
      Mrs. Liddell: Could the Minister give us some advice? It was my understanding that no fee was charged for an old weapon. Can she confirm that there is no fee for a trophy firearm?
      Miss Widdecombe: I may have to wait for my brain to catch up with me, but it does not have far to travel. I hope to be able to supply the necessary information to the hon. Lady before the debate is concluded. Meanwhile, that does not affect the stand that I have taken on the new clause.
      Mr. Leigh: I wonder why it is morally acceptable—indeed, legal—to keep at home a lethal weapon simply because it was manufactured before a certain date, but immoral and against the law to keep a weapon at home because one wishes to indulge in a sport. I suspect that such a value judgment cannot be sustained.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: They are cherished.
      Mr. Leigh: They are cherished or cosseted, but embarking on such a value judgment is dangerous for the House. One can usually tell a bad law by the number of exemptions attached to it.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: One or two matters have arisen that go rather wider than my new clause. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), as so often, put his finger firmly on an important point about the expertise and knowledge of firearms officers. One of the complaints that the British Shooting Sports Council has had for many years is that the firearms certificate system is not being used properly. Not only, sadly, was that demonstrably proved at Dunblane, but the 54—I think—constabularies all administer their own system on their own computers, which do not talk to each other.
      Although things have got much better in the past few years—I give full credit to the Association of Chief Police Officers and its committee that deals with such matters—we were keen to have a national firearms board, staffed by ex-armourers, ex-police firearms officers and real experts, who would be long-term appointments, understand the shooting fraternity, be experts in firearms, know the law inside out and maintain a national computer

      879
      network. If a firearm is found on a Friday night and the police wish to know whether it is a registered firearm, the chance of ascertaining that before midday on Monday is currently zilch.
      6 pm
      For some reason, which we have never discovered, there were those in the Home Office who decided that by commissioning certain studies they could come up with an astonishing cost for a national computer network. The figure of £10 million was mentioned, which I find astonishing bearing in mind the small numbers involved. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, our idea might be given a further airing, because the way that we keep the register is inefficient.
      I do not suggest that civilians should be permitted to give firearms certificates, but the very expertise that a civilian board would have would allow the oddball to be noticed because the people on it would deal every day with ordinary shooters.
      Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the detail of firearms. One issue that has been raised in discussions with the police is that of the registration of firearms and we may come on to that subject in Standing Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of having a national firearms list on computer, because I understand that that does not exist at the moment?
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: It certainly does not exist. Each firearms certificate identifies the weapon concerned with a serial number. Unfortunately, some weapons do not have serial numbers. There is always some problem, so it has been suggested that each item should have a log book, as cars do. I have never personally been against that suggestion, but it is not the policy of the British Shooting Sports Council because it would add to the complexity and paperwork. It is reasonable to expect that a national register should be kept or, at least, that the individual registers should be nationally accessible. That is within the capacity of modern technology. If one can run the national lottery and sell tens of millions of tickets every Saturday, 1.5 million certificates could easily be controlled by modern technology.
      I have no brief for the way in which that is done today and I do not believe that the Home Office seriously considered our proposals. The studies were done in a most biased manner and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), during the passage of the Bill, will learn a little more about the subject and, perhaps, seek to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister of State of the merits of our solution, which would reduce costs and—just as important—improve the expertise.
      My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made all the right noises, if I may put it like that, about the principle behind my new clause. Exempt weapons are exempt and do not require a certificate. There is no charge for exempt weapons, but the owner has to prove that they are exempt. If they are deactivated, some proof must be provided that they have been properly deactivated. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was right to say that some clever people were undeactivating their weapons,
      880
      but now more stringent standards have been drawn up under the masters of the proof houses. Weapons that have been deactivated under those standards will not only never work but are almost valueless, so many people do not wish to do that to their weapons.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 6

      EXEMPTION FOR DEALERS
      '.The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1) (aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a registered firearms dealer to have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, or sell or transfer. a short firearm for the purpose of selling or transferring that firearm to a person who may, by the provisions of this Act, lawfully possess, purchase or acquire it.'.—[Sir Jerry Wiggin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I recognise that new clause 6 is slightly controversial. Its effect would be to give dealers a general exemption to enable them to acquire short firearms for sale or transfer to an exempted person. They would draw their authority for that from the fact that the person with whom they were dealing was an exempted person under the legislation in respect of the gun in question. Since the market in exemptions will be so small, few dealers will apply for a section 5 licence, with all the difficulties that that will entail and the rigid parameters that will have to be followed for the occasional and probably not very profitable deal. Large geographical areas will therefore have no such service available.
      The House will recognise that the Bill will ban mail order, so guns will have to be transferred from hand to hand. The new clause covers a small matter, but the role of licensed firearms dealers could be much more helpful than the Government have recognised. Dealers now have to have secure premises, with the latest alarms connected directly to local police stations. That is right, and they go to much trouble to establish those premises. They are experienced and trustworthy people. I would not say that it never happens, but I can remember only one occasion—apart from the obvious crooks—on which a firearms dealer has got into any trouble. If those people and their facilities are used, not only will expense be saved, but they will be able to replace some of the trade that they will lose.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the subject. Can he tell the rest of us roughly how many licensed firearms dealers there are in Britain?
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is very complimentary, but even after all these years I do not claim an encyclopedic knowledge. I believe that there are just over 3,000 registered firearms dealers in the United Kingdom.
      I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be suspicious of new clause 6—because the whole tone of the Bill is to suppress, eliminate and put out of business all handguns over .22—but I wish to try her on it. Although I do not intend to press it at this stage, I should be grateful for her full explanation.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will not press the new clause as it would

      881
      be impossible for us to accept it. For a moment, so as to stay strictly in order under the new clause and so that I can give the Committee the information that I promised under the previous new clause, let us imagine that the dealer in question is trading in old weapons and he is asked whether there is a charge for a firearms certificate. The answer is that the only free certificates issued are issued for trophies of war—they are not issued for collectors' items or other historic weapons. I thank you, Dame Janet, for letting me get away with that.
      I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that we consider that the new clause would create a huge loophole in the general requirement for dealers to have the Home Secretary's authority to deal in prohibited weapons. We are not prepared to make concessions for dealers who deal in prohibited handguns. If dealers wish to sell prohibited weapons of any sort—including handguns which will be prohibited once the Bill becomes law—they must apply for the Home Secretary's authority to do so under section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
      I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that this may cause inconvenience for people who will have to find a dealer with section 5 authority, but we are not aware that the current requirements cause problems for vets in respect of tranquillising weapons, for example. There are no exemptions to the requirement of section 5(1), nor do I propose to make any. Therefore, I have to say to my hon. Friend rather more firmly than previously that we cannot accept the new clause.
      Mrs. Liddell: The Minister has the support of the Opposition in the stance that she has taken. The new clause would create a substantial loophole and would cause considerable difficulty by giving a blanket exemption to dealers. Those who will be able legitimately to hold higher-calibre weapons will be very small in number and there will be no real need for a wide network of dealers, which could only leave an opportunity for those with dishonourable purposes to gain access to premises where they knew such firearms could be held. I commend the Minister for the common sense of her position.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About three-quarters of an hour ago, anticipating that the House of Commons was likely to rise on a Tuesday at an unprecedented early hour, I inquired about the possibility of a second Adjournment debate on the position of Brigadier Thompson's reconnaissance team, which is coming back from Zaire. The information that I received from the Table Office was that an all circumstances post-Jopling there is no possibility of a second Adjournment debate even when it is anticipated at a very early stage that the sitting could collapse.
      The Adjournment debate of the hon. Gentleman from mid-Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), could not possibly be extended from hospitals in mid-Wales to other matters. Given the pressure on parliamentary time, it is a crying
      882
      shame and totally unsatisfactory that we should be about to begin the Adjournment debate at 12 minutes past 6. This is prime time, and many hon. Members have subjects on which they wish to raise questions—the commitment of the British Army in Zaire is just one. Can this matter be brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee because what it has done is, in effect, deeply unsatisfactory?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet-Fookes): The hon. Gentleman is correct in his understanding of the present practice. I would suggest that if he is unhappy he should go directly to the Procedure Committee to raise the issue. However, I must point out that, technically, we have not quite reached the Adjournment.
      Bill reported, with amendments, pursuant to Order [18 November].
      Bill, as amended, ordered to lie upon the Table.
      Ordered,
      That, during the proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, Standing Committee E shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mrs. Lait.]
      Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have said that the current situation regarding a second Adjournment debate is "the present practice". Frankly, a lot of my colleagues did not know that. Is it "practice", which can be defied, or a resolution of the House which cannot?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that the present situation is a result of the agreement following the Jopling reforms and that these are the orders under which we now work. I said "the present practice" because one cannot anticipate what changes might be made in the future.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House, although my hon. Friend from Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), could go on for some time with his Adjournment debate. I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I remember the Jopling reforms, but I do not recall that such an eventuality as this was considered. Many people would argue that there should perhaps be a reserve list of Adjournment debates for just such an eventuality. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will use your good offices to make that view clear, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow—as he so very often does—has put his finger on an important point.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can add to what I have said, but it is open to any hon. Member to make such recommendations as he feels suitable to the Procedure Committee, which exists for the purpose.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to put you on the spot, Madam Deputy Speaker, but could a statement be made at some point on precisely where the orders have been agreed that there should not be a second Adjournment debate? The Clerk may have some knowledge of this.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I will ensure that a member of the Clerk's Department provides chapter and verse for the hon. Gentleman.

  Ceredigion and Mid-Wales Hospital Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mrs. Lait.]
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I have been accorded a status this evening to which I would not dare aspire. I have been described as the hon. Member for mid-Wales, and even as the hon. Member for Wales. There may be a sense in which my party represents Wales, but I claim only to be the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. However, what I have to say tonight applies and is relevant to a large part of mid-Wales.
  I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), for being here tonight to respond to this important debate, and for the courteous hearing that he has given me in the past on this subject. I am also grateful to him for the letter that I received today in response to my most recent one to him—although it did not give me much comfort, except in one detail.
  The Under-Secretary will know that I have been expressing concern about the future of the hospital service in my constituency since June 1995, in correspondence and in questions in the Chamber. He will also know that, all along, I have avoided alarmism in this discussion.
  Those who attended the well-attended public meeting that I convened in Aberystwyth on 27 September—which led to the formation of the Ceredigion hospital services working group—will confirm that it would have been perfectly possible to create a mood of alarm, but that I avoided doing so. However, I must say that I am becoming alarmed at the direction of events and the likely consequences of the funding crisis—that is no overstatement—that is now affecting the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales hospital trust.
  Before I come to discuss the crisis, can I first emphasise the excellence of the service provided by the trust? I wish to emphasise the district general hospital at Bronglais, Aberystwyth, and the three community hospitals at Aberaeron, Cardigan and Tregaron.
  Bronglais provides a wide range of services, led by its own consultants, to a very high standard—of that there can be no doubt. The quality of service is matched by its efficiency, as its position in the NHS Wales performance tables on waiting times clearly shows. It has met its patients charter requirements successfully, and won the Healthy Hospitals competition in 1995. It is now preparing for King's Fund accreditation and the Investors in People award in 1996–97, and it has every confidence of success. It has set itself an impressive list of targets for the next financial year.
  It is worth asking what lies behind that success. The trust's new chairperson, Eleri Ebenezer, who came to the job at the beginning of this financial year, identifies a number of factors in her foreword to last year's annual report. She says:
  "Since my arrival in April 1996. I have been extremely impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the staff I have met so far."
  Such things are often said, and they sound like clichés, but I think that there is truth in what is said about the hospital and the trust.
  884
  The foreword continues:
  "the affection, support and esteem of the community for the Trust is excellent, with people having great pride in their local hospitals and health services … The trust also appreciates the strong support provided by the Community Health Council, the County Council, the University and the voluntary organisations in Ceredigion and Mid Wales."
  The three community hospitals in turn are cherished by the localities they serve, by virtue of the same dedication and quality of care. However, the service, in terms of both quality and, crucially, range, is in danger.
  Until a week or so ago, the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust, alone among the trusts in the Dyfed Powys health authority, had failed to agree a contract with it, arguing that the authority's offer was £400,000 short of what was needed. Knowing that, if conciliation found in the trust's favour, the authority would go to pendulum arbitration, which could result—that being the nature of such arbitration—in its getting nothing, the trust accepted an improvement of only £150,000 on the offer.
  The additional sum of £150,000 that was agreed 10 days ago is in the form of a loan, and £320,000 of this year's health authority contract is what is known as brokerage—a loan that must be repaid. The implications of the settlement will be grave.
  The health authority faces serious difficulties. It is responsible for, among other places, the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), who is here today; I am sure that he is interested in the matter.
  For various reasons, the health authority will have to find a total spending reduction of between £9 million and £10 million by the end of the decade; that is partly because Powys health authority, the predecessor authority, accumulated a deficit of, I believe, £2 million up to the end of last year. There is some feeling in the Dyfed part of the new authority that it should not have to carry the consequences of that deficit, but I do not want to be divisive and pursue that matter tonight.
  Because of the need to pull back £9 million-plus, there will be year-on-year cuts until the end of the century, with little if any scope for efficiency savings to be made without reducing service quality. What I said about the efficiency level of Bronglais is relevant to that, and I emphasise that Bronglais has among the lowest management costs in Wales. It is small wonder that the health authority says:
  "the situation could lead to Trusts failing and services being put in jeopardy."
  Within that dismal picture, Bronglais district general hospital—I want that term to mean what it says—as a small hospital, serving a sparsely populated rural area, has its own specific problems, operating as it must in the competitive environment of the national health service market. Specifically, it is required to service any capital development to the extent of 6 per cent. and to provide a 6 per cent. return not only on new capital development but on asset value.
  Unless there is a recognition of those specific problems—there should and can be such a recognition—and unless provision is made, as it must be, to cope with them, Bronglais will find it increasingly difficult to maintain a sufficient capital programme to replace equipment and keep abreast of new developments in technology and other facilities. The effect on staff

  885
  recruitment and the marketability—we have to use that terminology—of the hospital's services could be to set up a spiral of decline. I have described to the Minister in the past how that could occur.
  The strategy document of Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust, "Ceredigion 2000", contains a SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats—analysis. Among the threats, it identifies the fact that fundholders now have far greater discretion in purchasing decisions and that they—and especially those at the outer periphery of the area—might be tempted to purchase services elsewhere.
  On capital development, lest anyone should mention the private finance initiative, let me express my total scepticism as to its relevance to the health service in general and to a small hospital in rural Wales in particular.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the way in which the PFI has been used to hold back for months, if not years, the work that should be taking place on the new community hospital in the neighbouring area of north Meirionnydd and eastern Dwyfor? That is a warning to anybody who goes down that road.
  Mr. Dafis: I am aware that the attempt to find a PFI solution involves delay. The new development at Bronglais is extremely welcome, and can go ahead only because it is revenue neutral. It is the last capital development to get under the fence before PFI came in, and I doubt whether it would be proceeding if PFI had been in place earlier.
  In attempting to protect the district general hospital at Bronglais, the trust will inevitably be tempted—this is the crunch for the moment—to close community hospitals, despite its intention, stated in February 1994,
  "to strengthen the role of community hospitals"
  as part of its community services strategy. If it closed a community hospital, it would immediately save the 6 per cent. charge that it has to make on the asset value of that hospital.
  I remind the House of the various statements, including one by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), that community hospitals are valued and are to be retained, and that their closure should not be on the agenda. On that subject, the health authority said in one of its documents:
  "there has to be rationalisation"—
  a euphemism for closure, of course—
  "of some peripheral hospitals if we are to manage within the current base budget."
  Any such move would provoke a fierce and entirely justified public response. The Cardis, together with the people of north Pembrokeshire, who use the hospital at Cardigan, would rise in revolt, and that would be a fearsome spectacle.
  The health authority is responding to the crisis by initiating a strategic review of its services. There is nothing wrong with that, and certainly there is nothing wrong with considering ways of increasing co-operation between trusts and hospitals. I am all in favour of that at the expense of the competition principle that underpins so much of Government policy. However, we must resist any cost-cutting exercise that would reduce the range of specialist services provided by Bronglais's specialists.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this important
  886
  debate, and acknowledge the hard work he has done to protect the services in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. On Bronglais hospital, many of my constituents in the south of Meirionnydd have to travel to Aberystwyth for essential health services. Is he aware of the great difficulties they would face if they had to travel to places such as Carmarthen? The distances involved are unreasonable. Bronglais serves south Meirionnydd as much as Ceredigion and Pembroke. I hope that the Minister will respond usefully and reasonably.
  Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. I am talking not only of the welfare of Ceredigion but of a necessary and highly valued service to many people in Machynlleth and parts of Meirionnydd and Montgomeryshire. It is essential for that large area that the hospital should be kept as it is.
  Trust chairman Eleri Ebenezer, speaking of the great pride in their hospital of people in the trust area, said:
  "They particularly appreciate that they do not have to travel over fifty miles to the nearest of our neighbouring Trusts' General Hospitals for treatment and care."
  The nearest general hospital is in Carmarthen, and there is also ysbyty Gwynedd and, to the east, Shrewsbury. It would be unacceptable and unreasonable for people to have to travel to those. She continues:
  "As a small trust, the strategic importance of our location cannot be denied."
  Aberystwyth, in its strategic location, serves a wide area of mid-Wales. That is the bottom line. The position of Bronglais as a district general hospital delivering at least its present range of consultant-led services with its own consultants must be protected. Bearing it in mind that it serves the biggest part of mid-Wales, anything else is unthinkable. That should be non-negotiable.
  It is worrying that the health authority suggests that the trend towards increasing specialisation, and the ever more rigorous requirements of the royal colleges in respect of the number of treatments that need to be undertaken and on the number of consultants who have to work together, must imply increasing centralisation of services. I am unhappy about such talk. That assumption must be challenged. Centralisation is not the way forward.
  In dealing with Bronglais, the royal colleges have shown a sensible and accommodating flexibility in the numbers game—which I dare say makes some sense in an urban setting—and they must continue to do so. It would not be acceptable to apply urban norms to vastly different rural settings.
  I remind the Minister and others that the Government's recent White Paper, "A Service with Ambitions", gave as one of the five elements of quality
  "the accessibility of the service, in terms of distance, time, physical access, language and understanding".
  Almost all those factors, and especially language and understanding, apply importantly to the position of Bronglais. It should not be part of the agenda of a service with ambitions to centralise away specialisms from places such as Aberystwyth in the way it has.
  Cancer care at Bronglais is a case in point. A highly regarded and valued service is provided, working in association with Singleton hospital at Swansea and the Royal Marsden hospital. That service is seeking designation as a unit as one of its targets for next year. It

  887
  should achieve that. It would be unacceptable for the people of mid-Wales to have to receive that care at a distant hospital.
  There is talk of restructuring the trusts in the health authority. Of course, there can be no question of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust being swallowed by another trust. Any restructuring should bear in mind the need and potential for strengthening the trust. There may be an opportunity for that, with the proposals for the Derwen mental health trust. Proposals were put out for consultation last week, and they must be considered in the context of the need to strengthen the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust.
  All that I have said must mean, setting aside other considerations, that the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales trust needs more money. It is as simple as that. That issue cannot be ducked for next financial year; I presume that it is too late for this financial year. The problem must be addressed in the context of the needs of Dyfed Powys health authority, which serves a vast area in Welsh terms. It serves 470,000 people and must, of necessity, maintain four district general hospitals even though in simple population terms two would serve. The nature of the area demands that; it is acknowledged that four are needed.
  It is unreasonable for the health authority to have to work with a diminishing budget for the next four years. How can it possibly manage in such circumstances? The formula is, of course, being reconsidered. I do not want to argue that one health authority should take money away from others, but Dyfed Powys health authority needs more money. The special conditions and circumstances that operate there must be acknowledged in the funding provided, and especially in respect of that for the trust serving Ceredigion and mid-Wales.
  The decisions that will be taken over the next few weeks, first in the Budget and then in the Welsh Office financial settlement, are highly relevant. For that reason, I beg the Secretary of State for Wales, with all due courtesy, to pay careful and urgent attention to my remarks. The matter is crucial. I assume that the health authority is making, and has made, strenuous representations to the Welsh Office about the situation. I hope that it will not simply agree to implement the cuts. Its function should in part be to demand and argue for the additional funding that it certainly needs.
  We are told that the NHS is everywhere under strain, but I speak for my patch and for a large part of rural Wales. Unless this crisis is tackled—and I do not exaggerate—the implications for this strategically vital institution and the people it serves will be very serious.
  6.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for giving us an opportunity to debate this important subject. I well know his concern for the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust and for Bronglais hospital in particular. In turn, as he acknowledged, Bronglais hospital achieves excellence and if there were to be a deterioration in that, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), some of whose constituents are served by the same hospital and trust, would be even quicker to my door than the hon. Gentleman has been.
  888
  I must also thank the hon. Gentleman for not pursuing the opportunity to raise the subject last Friday, as that would have precluded me from representing the United Kingdom at an important European conference in Ireland on employment and regional development. I am grateful to him for that. It was not the first time that Plaid Cymru has kindly facilitated the representation of Wales abroad, and that is always appreciated.
  Although the funding of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust is the hon. Gentleman's prime concern, before I focus on the trust and Bronglais hospital, it may be desirable for me to outline to the House the present arrangements for hospital income and the role that the Welsh Office has in the matter.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales stated earlier this month at the Welsh Association of Health Authorities and Trusts conference, the NHS budget in Wales increased last year from £2.2 billion to £2.3 billion. Since 1979, the average annual increase in the NHS budget has been well above inflation. Furthermore, it is on record that the NHS will receive an increase over and above the level of inflation every year for the next five years. My right hon. Friend has agreed to match that in Wales. The health service in Wales is and will continue to be a priority.
  The overall thrust of my right hon. Friend's message, however, is that there will be no relief from improving efficiency, management, communication with the public and standards. It cannot be accepted that a health service spending £2.3 billion a year cannot find more savings in addition to those already achieved.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that the large figures that he bandies around are fanciful and have no connection with reality. My right hon. Friend will be announcing the details of his Welsh spending plans next month.
  NHS trusts, by their very nature, control their own affairs, and receive no direct revenue funding from the Welsh Office. They receive by far the greatest share of their total income from contracts with health authorities and general practitioners for the provision of health care. A small proportion of income derives from non-patient-related activities, such as the funding of medical training and income generation schemes.
  In the case of the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, 94 per cent. of its income derives from patient activity, with the remaining 6 per cent. coming from other sources. Dyfed Powys health authority provides the largest element of contract income, although the success of the fundholding scheme means that an increasing proportion of patient activity is commissioned directly from general practitioners. That is a welcome development, and there are already well-documented benefits for patients throughout Wales.
  Capital expenditure by an NHS trust—to expand, replace or develop some of its capital assets—can be funded from four main sources. First, a NHS trust can fund from its own depreciation reserves. Those reserves occur as an element of depreciation is included in contract prices for patient activity and is utilised to offset the cost of replacement assets. Secondly, when revenue surpluses are generated, there is the flexibility to use those surpluses to finance capital expenditure.

  889
  The Welsh Office provides a third source, via long-term loans to finance authorised capital expenditure which cannot be met by the means already described. That would involve the inclusion of interest costs of the loans in prices for patient activity.
  Finally, capital expenditure can be generated via the private finance initiative, which is by far the most exciting and innovative method of capital provision. Increasingly, hospitals are making use of the private finance initiative as a means of acquiring improved capabilities without the need for capital expenditure. The private finance initiative also offers the opportunity for more innovative means of health care provision, with commensurate increases in efficiency and effectiveness.
  I am sure that the House will agree that the private finance initiative represents a major new opportunity for the NHS in Wales to explore and exploit the most modern and effective methods of health care provision. Frankly, I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, and I completely refute the assertion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  In no way does the PFI represent a means of engineering delay. It has quite the opposite effect, for it expands the ability to undertake large capital projects and means that more such projects will proceed earlier than they would have done by traditional and conventional methods. Indeed, the chairman of Powys Healthcare NHS trust told me that prospective partners had shown more interest in the private finance initiative projects at Newtown Bronllys than in most other PFI candidates to date, so the claims that PFI has no relevance or interest in rural areas are clearly misplaced.
  Let me turn to what is expected from a hospital in terms of its financial performance. Naturally, it should balance its books year on year. What is required, in effect, is that the hospital's revenue expenditure should be contained within the income that it can expect to receive, essentially from its health authorities and GP 'fundholders and from other means. The target is well understood, and all but a handful of hospitals in Wales have achieved that break-even position.
  I am sure that it has not escaped Members' notice that the financial performance of the NHS in Wales has lately been the subject of media scrutiny that is all too often inaccurate and misleading. Particularly, I refer to the flawed report produced by the University of Wales college, Newport, on behalf of the BBC. It contains a large number of inaccuracies, and has caused great concern among patients and staff at hospitals in Wales, that are unfairly reported as being in deficit at the end of the last financial year.
  Contrary to the report, overall hospital financial performance in Wales in 1995–96 was represented by a surplus of £2.61 million. The report wrongly incorporates technical accounting adjustments, which have no detrimental effect on the trusts' finances, into the overall picture. That error could have been corrected easily if those involved had taken the trouble to check the figures with Welsh Office or hospital officials or read the annual reports of the hospitals that were criticised in such a sensational and unfair way. The media could easily have given the true picture had they the will to do so.
  Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust has broadly satisfied its requirement to break even over the past three financial years. It is anticipated that this year's financial
  890
  performance will be much the same. I recognise that this is a difficult year for Bronglais hospital, and the effort that is being made is a reflection of the continuing commitment and hard work of all the staff involved.
  Furthermore, I am pleased to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said—that the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust performs above the Welsh average for most of the patients charter targets. The number of patients treated in 1995–96 continues to increase, with the largest increase of 26 per cent. being in day cases. That is in line with Welsh Office targets. Staff at the trust are to be commended for the high-quality care that they provide for the people of mid-Wales.
  I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about the funding of the hospital together with its long-term viability. As I said, I met him last month to discuss those very issues. It was a very informative and productive meeting, during which we discussed various points of concern regarding the Ceredigion and Mid-Wales NHS trust, Bronglais hospital and the hon. Member's request for additional funding to the health authority to be earmarked for the hospital.
  On the question of additional funding to Dyfed Powys health authority specifically for Bronglais hospital, I can only reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be appropriate, because, as I have stated on a number of occasions, it is for the health authority to judge where the resources allocated to it for the health care needs of the local population should be spent.
  Additional funding could be provided only at the expense of other parts of Wales. I am sure the House will recognise that that would compromise our commitment to equity of health care provision across Wales.
  I do, however, acknowledge that Dyfed Powys health authority is facing a challenging period in terms of its finances, and in order to help the authority I have agreed loans totalling £2.5 million. That sum is made up of a previous loan of £800,000 from 1995–96 that was made to the former Powys health authority, together with a further £.7 million being provided this year.
  I have also agreed that the repayment of those loans should be deferred to the year 1999–2000. That will allow the health authority to establish firmly a comprehensive strategy for commissioning health care before repaying the loans. In agreeing those arrangements, I have requested regular monitoring reports from the Dyfed Powys health authority.
  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, Dyfed Powys health authority has undertaken a review, with the assistance of all the NHS trusts in the health authority's geographical area, and I readily commend that initiative. It provides an opportunity to identify more efficient use of resources and it is expected that a list of recommendations will be submitted to the Welsh Office some time in December.
  Mr. Dafis: The Minister tells us that it is for the health authority to allocate resources, and I understand that. Surely, however, the Welsh Office has a view on the specific need for the district general hospital at Bronglais to retain the range of services that it currently provides through its own specialists. In addition, surely the Welsh Office has a view—as I am sure the Government do—on the position of community hospitals. Would not the Minister regard it as unacceptable if the trust had to

  891
  choose between those two priorities—the retention of community hospitals or the protection of the range of services available at Bronglais?
  Mr. Jones: First and foremost, I say to the hon. Gentleman—as I have told him before—that we remain and will continue to remain committed to the provision of acute health care at Bronglais hospital. It is not, however, possible for me or anyone else in my position to attempt to second-guess all the decisions in the decision-making process that should occur within the health service in Wales.
  There has to be a proper place for health authorities, which have now been reformed and rationalised, with great economies achieved by cutting the number of bureaucrats in the Welsh health authorities. It is their responsibility to identify the health needs of the communities in their local areas. They in turn make arrangements with NHS trusts up and down Wales to provide all that health care.
  I am confident that that is the right level on which decisions should be made, are made, and will continue to be made. Dare I describe it to the hon. Gentleman as a process of real devolution, which we have brought about in the NHS in Wales and in many other fields of activity in Wales? Real devolution is a guiding principle of this Government—we believe in it, and we practise it.
  Together with the health authority and Bronglais hospital, the Government will maintain their commitment to providing modern hospital health care for the people of Ceredigion. I can continue by saying to the hon. Gentleman that one obvious example of that commitment is the approval and funding of the reprovision of facilities for the elderly and mentally ill from North Road hospital, which is an inadequate and antiquated location, to a purpose-built facility at Bronglais hospital. The new scheme will include in-patient and day hospital facilities, together with associated X-ray and urodynamic services. That scheme is progressing as planned, at a projected cost of some £8.4 million—a significant commitment indeed.
  In addition, Bronglais hospital has been allocated a further £900,000 capital expenditure in 1996–97 for the provision of improved pathology services and other equipment needs. The trust's commitment to the latest technology is demonstrated through its key involvement in the Telemedicine project, which received widespread publicity at national level. The trust also became the first in Wales and the second in the United Kingdom to go live on the Internet in 1995.
  It is appropriate to remember at this point that this month we witnessed the 50th anniversary of Parliament passing the legislation to set up the national health service. It is a tribute to the many thousands of doctors, nurses
  892
  and staff who have healed the sick and cared for so many of our fellow citizens over the years that our health service is regarded with such affection today.
  When the legislation passed into law, my party gave the national health service its full support, and that support has continued ever since—indeed, for 34 of the 48 years of the life of the NHS since 1948, it has been Conservative Governments who have raised the taxes and given the money to keep the NHS running as a universal, national service that is freely available to all.
  Spending on the national health service in Wales has increased by nearly 85 per cent. since the winter of 1979, when the Labour party was last in power. We have increased the resources available to the NHS by record amounts. There are more nurses, midwives, doctors and dentists than in 1979. We are proud of the expanded and improved NHS that we enjoy today. This Government have presided over the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the health service. In Wales, we spend more on the health service for every man, woman and child than is spent in England, particularly for areas with more marked health needs.
  Our improvements have allowed us to continue to expand the NHS in Wales. New hospitals are coming for St. David's and the Royal infirmary in Cardiff, Baglan, Bronllys, Newtown and Ynys y Plwm near Llantrisant, and there will be a new cancer centre in north Wales.
  On its 50th birthday, we can look back with pride at a health service that works. It works because it has adapted, while remaining true to its founding principles. It works because it has a Conservative Government who are committed to real increases in health spending.
  This Government have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the development of a health care system in Wales that not only meets the needs of today but is designed to take the service well into the next millennium. That can be truly effective only if all the component parts of the NHS in Wales work together with a strategic view of the way ahead.
  It cannot be denied that health care provision in Ceredigion and mid-Wales faces particular pressures, but I have every confidence that Dyfed Powys health authority and local GPs will want to ensure that their local hospital is used for the best and fullest benefit of the population in that rural area. That is exactly in line with the extract from the trust chairman's report describing the way in which the community regards both Bronglais hospital and the trust, which the hon. Gentleman quoted with great pride. Working together, they will see the way forward as one of co-ordination and co-operation for fulfilling the accepted objective of always striving to provide the people of Ceredigion with the best possible quality of health care.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to pay reparations to ex-service personnel who were prisoners of war in Japan. [4304]

  Mr. Hanley
  Compensation for former prisoners of war was legally settled in the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty. This provided for the proceeds of Japanese assets held by the allies to be used for reparations.

  Through the war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security, we have in place a comprehensive system of compensation for anyone disabled as a result of service in the armed forces. Far-eastern former prisoners of war are eligible for the basic war disablement pension and the wide range of supplementary allowances.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from observers to the recent elections in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement. [4583]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The 93-strong EU observer mission, including Dr. David Browning from Oxford university as the United Kingdom's independent observer, concluded that the elections, although not flawless, were conducted in a fair and transparent manner and contributed to the further consolidation of democracy. The Organisation of American States observer mission took a similar view. Dr. Browning has reported separately that the Nicaraguan people were allowed a free, fair and secret vote. Copies of the EU declaration and a of Dr. Browning's report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  United Nations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom contributions to(a) the United Nations and (b) its agencies in 1995–96; and what is the estimated contribution for 1996–97. [4668]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Details of United Kingdom contributions to the UN and its specialised agencies in 1995 will be placed in the Libraries of the House. Figures for the financial year 1995–96 are not available because they are calculated by calendar year.

  Contributions in 1996 and 1997 are expected to be broadly similar.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to make a statement on United Kingdom membership of UNESCO. [4705]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have no immediate plans to rejoin UNESCO. This issue is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.

  Ghana
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary elections in Ghana will be free and fair. [4844]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We have provided £600,000 for optical scanners and 11 million voter registration forms. We will send four observers as part of the EU observer mission and will participate in a separate Commonwealth mission.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Joint Funding Scheme
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications were made to the joint funding scheme in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and how many were successful. [4630]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In 1995–96, 359 project applications were made to the joint funding scheme, of which 132 were successful. In 1996–97, 279 applications were received, of which 137 were successful.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of joint funding scheme contracts issued by country and region in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [4629]

  Dr. Fox
  Details of projects for which funding agreements were issued under the joint funding scheme in 1995–96 and 1996–97, by country and by region, are as listed.

  New projects for which funding agreements were issued under the joint funding scheme—1995–96

  By country

  Number

  Angola

  1

  Bangladesh

  4

  Bolivia

  2

  Brazil

  2

  Cambodia

  4

  Caribbean

  1

  Chad

  1

  Chile

  2

  China

  1

  Colombia

  1

  East Africa

  3

  Egypt

  2

  El Salvador

  1

  Eritrea

  1

  Ethiopia

  9

  Gambia, The

  1

  Ghana

  4

  Guatemala

  1

  461

  New projects for which funding agreements were issued under the joint funding scheme—1995–96

  By country

  Number

  Guyana

  1

  India

  20

  Indonesia

  1

  International

  1

  Kenya

  7

  Latin America

  2

  Lesotho

  2

  Malawi

  1

  Mozambique

  1

  Namibia

  3

  Nepal

  1

  Nicaragua

  3

  Niger

  1

  Occupied Territories

  1

  Pakistan

  1

  Peru

  5

  Philippines

  3

  Solomon Islands

  1

  South Africa

  5

  South East Asia

  1

  Sri Lanka

  1

  Sudan

  2

  Tanzania

  4

  Uganda

  7

  Vietnam

  3

  Windward Islands

  1

  Yemen

  1

  Zambia

  3

  Zimbabwe

  8

  Total

  132

  By region

  Africa

  66

  Asia

  42

  Americas

  22

  Pacific

  1

  Worldwide

  1

  Total

  132

  By region

  Africa

  66

  Asia

  42

  Americas

  22

  Pacific

  1

  Worldwide

  1

  Total

  132

  New Projects for which funding agreements were issued under the joint funding scheme—1996–97

  By country

  Number

  Asia-Pacific

  1

  Bangladesh

  6

  Bolivia

  2

  Brazil

  4

  Cambodia

  7

  Cameroon

  3

  Chad

  1

  Chile

  1

  China

  1

  Colombia

  2

  Commonwealth

  1

  Ethiopia

  5

  Gambia, The

  3

  Ghana

  5

  Guyana

  1

  India

  14

  Indonesia

  1

  Jamaica

  1

  Kenya

  10

  Kiribati

  1

  Laos

  1

  Lebanon

  1

  Malawi

  1

  Middle East

  1

  Mozambique

  1

  Myanmar

  1

  462

  New Projects for which funding agreements were issued under the joint funding scheme—1996–97

  By country

  Number

  Namibia

  2

  Nepal

  2

  Nicaragua

  3

  Nigeria

  2

  Occupied Territories

  1

  Peru

  2

  Philippines

  1

  Rwanda

  1

  Senegal

  1

  Sierra Leone

  3

  South Africa

  10

  Somalia

  2

  Sri Lanka

  4

  Sudan

  2

  Swaziland

  4

  Syria

  1

  Tanzania

  4

  Thailand

  3

  Togo

  1

  Uganda

  8

  Vietnam

  1

  Zimbabwe

  3

  Total

  137

  By regional

  Africa

  72

  Asia

  47

  Americas

  16

  Pacific

  1

  Worldwide

  1

  Total

  137

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Projects funded in Nicaragua in 1995–96 and 1996–97 through(a)technical co-operation,(b) Programme aid and (c) Commonwealth Development Corporation. [4628]

  Dr. Liam Fox

  (a) Technical Co-operation
  UK Bilateral Programme
  English Language Teaching Project.
  Land Resources/Fire Risks Mapping Project.
  Technical Co-operation Training Programme.

  Joint Funding Scheme

  Agency

  Project title

  CODA International

  Institutional Capacity Building Programme

  Health Unlimited

  Community Health Care Programme

  Marie Scopes International

  Developing Participative Programme Management Capacity

  Family Planning and Health Services

  One World Action

  Community Health Care Programme Support for Solidez

  War on Want

  Nanki Luphia Interated Development Programme

  Y Care International

  Acanualinca Youth and Community Development

  Intergrated Rural Development Programme

  CAFOD

  Base Christian Training/Natural Health

  463

  Joint Funding Scheme

  Agency

  Project title

  Integrated Social, Economic and Rural Development

  Rehabilitation of War-Wounded

  Street Children's Mural Workshops

  Rural Women's Organisation and Development

  Christian Aid

  Integrated Development Programme Small Projects Fund

  Matagalpa Community Movement

  Women's Co-ops Rotating Credit Fund

  Women's Rights Projects

  Oxfam

  Training of Women's Movement Local Development and Environmental Management

  Programme Support for Capacity Building

  Educational Project for War Disabled

  South-South Environmental Linking

  Project, Training and Organisation of Women's Movement

  Revolving Fund for Small-scale Farmers

  Farmer to Farmer

  Alternative Credit System

  Stocking and Marketing of Agricultural Production

  Economic Support for War Victims Training and Organisation of Women's Movement

  Socio-Economic Development Project Economic Strategies for Fishing Communities

  Development Practices for Sustainable Agriculture

  Institutional Strengthening Economic Development of Campasinos

  (b) Programme Aid
  None.

  (c) CDC
  Almacenadora de Exportaciones—Export warehousing.
  Camarones del Pacifico—Shrimp farming.
  Compania Licorera de Nicaragua—Rum distillery.
  Nicaragua Sugar Estates—Sugar production.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b) promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4525]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In considering project proposals, ODA programme managers are required to consider the need for environmental analysis and audit as set out in "Manual of Environmental Appraisal", a copy of which is in the

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed at United Kingdom ports for selected reasons for refusal

  Main reason for refusal (as recorded in the statistics)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  21993

  21994

  21995

  Transit passenger—not satisfied able and intending to proceed at once to another country, and assured of entry there

  679

  698

  528

  884

  1,474

  1,293

  962

  941

  Lack of returnability or inadequate entry facilities for country of ultimate destination—not allowed to proceed in transit

  29

  24

  41

  31

  42

  74

  24

  22

  464
  House Library. ODA supports the demonstration and promotion of environmental auditing as part of its development programmes in a number of countries.

  Examples are environmental audit by British Steel of a Zimbabwe Steel Corporation—ZISCO—site as part of an aid and trade provision funded privatisation programme; Audits have also been commissioned for ODA projects in Guyana, privatisation of industrial sectors; in India, potential environmental liabilities associated with power sector reform.

  With regard to the promotion of improved efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing, ODA is providing technical assistance to assess the environmental impacts of the Ventanas copper smelter, Chile, upon people living in surrounding areas. The environmental audit of the smelter identified low-costno—cost options to manage solid, liquid and gaseous wastes.

  In Egypt, ODA is supporting the development and application of environmental auditing skills in three sectors—textiles, oil and soap, and food—through audits of 36 sites, identification of low-cost or no-cost solutions to environmental problems, financial support in the implementation of demonstration projects and training for factory staff and private sector—environmental consultants.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of grant aid to Sri Lanka. [4303]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We expect to spend nearly £8 million this financial year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Rules
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prohibited from entering the United Kingdom under paragraph 320 of the immigration rules in each year since 1979; and on what grounds. [3684]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The statistics available on reasons for refusal relate only to passengers refused and removed at ports in the United Kingdom since 1988. Those reasons for refusal which are wholly or partly linked to paragraph 320 of the rules are given in the table. Corresponding information for earlier years and for entry clearance refusals is not available.
  465

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed at United Kingdom ports for selected reasons for refusal

  Main reason for refusal (as recorded in the statistics)

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  21993

  21994

  21995

  Work permit obtained by deception, or holder of forged, falsified or stolen permit

  3

  3

  9

  10

  1

  6

  5

  8

  Medically undesirable

  104

  86

  26

  21

  9

  2

  7

  4

  Convicted of extradition crime

  79

  74

  83

  51

  40

  22

  12

  8

  Subject of deportation order

  49

  37

  34

  28

  24

  23

  21

  25

  Exclusion conducive to the public good

  243

  393

  631

  888

  808

  886

  269

  241

  No passport or acceptable identity document

  415

  463

  621

  732

  817

  1,068

  1,789

  1,584

  Spurious passport and not qualified for entry

  486

  408

  447

  542

  386

  323

  461

  256

  Lack of UK visa (other than for settlement)1

  3,090

  3,151

  3,889

  3,921

  2,149

  1,885

  1,636

  1,977

  Claiming admission as returning resident but not qualified

  54

  57

  55

  59

  40

  31

  37

  21

  1Including visa set aside on grounds of misrepresentation, forgery, failure to disclose facts or where a change of circumstances has removed the right of admission.

  2Data are incomplete.

  Battersea Fire Station
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will accept the decision of the London fire and civil defence authority not to retain a second fire appliance at Battersea fire station. [3976]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady 0. Maitland) on 16 October 1996,Official Report, column 1008. 1 understand from the authority that no such decision has been taken.

  Violent Videos
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been (i) carried out and (ii) commissioned by his Department into the effectiveness of the enforcement of the current law on the availability of violent videos to children. [4464]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware of no studies directed specifically at the effectiveness of the enforcement of the current law on the availability of violent videos to children. However, last year my right hon. and learned Friend commissioned research by the university of Birmingham into the effects of videos on the behaviour of young offenders. The results of the research are expected to be published in October 1997.

  Earlier this month, in view of the considerable public concern about the level of violence portrayed in videos, my right hon. and learned Friend asked the British Board of Film Classification for a report on the action the board is taking now to reduce the level of violence in videos; the steps it is taking to assess the level of public concern over the issue of violence in videos; and how, for the future, the board plans to adapt its processes and approach to continue properly to discharge its duties under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The report is expected next month.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the land area of each fire authority in England is designated as C and D risk. [4398]
  466
  Mr. Sackville
  Information on fire risk category areas is published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The latest available figures can be found on page 8 of "Fire Service Statistics 1996", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firefighters have lost their lives since 1990 when attending building fires in designated C and D risk areas. [4397]

  Mr. Sackville
  From 1 January 1990 to 13 November 1996, eight firefighters have died in fires that started in buildings in designated C or D risk areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire authorities in England currently provide a level of service in excess of the Home Office's recommended minimum standards of fire cover. [4399]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with individual fire authorities. It is for the authority to decide whether it wishes to provide fire cover at a level above the national recommended standards.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total expenditure for the last financial year by his Department on defending cases of habeas corpus for asylum seekers held in custody. [4671]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about future arrangements for(a) section 11 funding in Birmingham, (b) pupil support projects in Birmingham and (c) its Home Office grant. [5004]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 13 November 1996,Official Report, column 242.

  European Court of Justice
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the European Court of Justice in future third pillar conventions; and what conclusions the Government have reached regarding the role of the court in relation to the conventions on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and on the use of information technology for customs purposes. [5171]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's policy on the role of the European Court of Justice in respect of conventions negotiated under the third pillar of the treaty on European Union is to consider each case on its merits. But we and our European Union partners recognised in agreeing to the protocol to the Europol convention that the best way forward in that case lay in a flexible formula under which member states could choose whether to make a declaration that they were prepared to accept the jurisdiction of the court to give preliminary rulings as to the interpretation of the convention on the basis of references by their national courts. As regards the role of the ECJ in the conventions on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests and on the use of information technology for customs purposes, the Government have concluded that they can agree to a flexible solution on similar lines to that in the Europol convention protocol.

  Accordingly, we shall signal our agreement to the draft protocols for this purpose prepared by the Irish presidency, which would enable member states to make a declaration accepting ECJ jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings as to the interpretation of these conventions on the basis of references by national courts. We shall make it clear that it would not be the United Kingdom's intention to make such a declaration in respect of our own courts.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refurbishment Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 220, if he will (a) set out the objectives and (b) estimate the total individual costs of (i) the second phase of the overhaul of carriage gates, (ii) the external painting and roof repairs at Norman Shaw North, (iii) the repairs carried out to the supporting structure of the Prince's Chamber ceiling, (iv) provision of improved storage in the Library cellars, (v) an improved sales counter at the Speaker's bookstall, (vi) the new pulpit on the main committee corridor and (vii) other projects. [4704]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The policy objectives and forecast in-year costs relating to work in the House of Commons are as follows:468

  Project

  Objective

  In-year cost to the House £

  In-Year cost total £

  (i) Second phase of overhaul of carriage gates

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 7 November 1996,Official Report,column 607

  (ii) External painting and roof repairs at Norman Shaw North

  To maintain the roof and exterior paintwork

  175,000

  175,000

  (iii) The Prince's Chamber is administered by the House of Lords, for which I have no responsibility.

  (iv) Provision of improved storage in the Library

  To provide improved storage and meet health and safety requirements

  40,000

  40,000

  (v) Improved sales counter at Speaker's bookstall

  To improve facilities for Members and their visitors

  16,000

  16,000

  (vi) New pulpit on main Committee Corridor

  To provide a more effective working area for staff and include access for IT facilities

  16,200

  27,000

  (vii) Other projects

  MY committee's policy objective is to achieve exemplary standards of maintenance by carrying out appropriate conservation, maintenance and improvements haveing regard to health, safety energy conservation environmental issues and the historic fabric

  Paintings (Restoration)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 221, if he will list the 35 oil paintings that have been restored since July in the House, indicating the restoration cost of each painting. [4706]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  The paintings are those situated in the Strangers and Members Dining Rooms, the Pugin Room, the Smoking Room and the Tea Room. It is not possible to give the cost of restoring each painting separately since the work was done under a single sum contract.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to the Government's response to recommendations 11 and 30 of the second report of the Public Service Committee, on ministerial accountability and responsibility, HC 67 Session 1996–97, if he will introduce proposals to remove the rules relating to the form and content of parliamentary questions. [3885]

  Mr. Newton
  The recommendations in the Public Service Committee's report, and the Government's response, relate to the answering of parliamentary questions. The recommendations and the responses do not bear on the rules of the House on whether questions are
  469
  admissible or are in order. If the hon. Member has proposals for change in these rules, he may wish to draw them to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Repossessions (Northern Ireland)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many homes in Northern Ireland have been repossessed in each of the last 10 years. [3853]

  Mr. Streeter
  The number of writs and originating summonses issued in respect of mortgages by the Chancery Division of the Northern Ireland High Court for each of the last 10 years as follows:

  1985: 1,170

  1986: 1,545

  1987: 2,047

  1988: 2,201

  1989: 2,459

  1990: 2,599

  1991: 3.061

  1992: 1,646

  1993: 1,728

  1994: 1,372

  1995: 1,220

  There are no reliable figures available on the number of decrees for possession granted on foot of these.

  The enforcement of judgments office, which is responsible for delivering vacant possession in Northern Ireland, has received the following number of applications to enforce an order for repossession of land for each year over the period:

  1988: 657

  1989: 718

  1990: 748

  1991: 832

  1992: 683

  1993: 492

  1994: 468

  1995: 396

  The figures relating to the number of these which resulted in actual repossessions taking place are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) for what reasons the Legal Aid Board has refused to disclose to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington(a) the total amount Mr. X, whose name has been sent to him, has received in legal aid during the past five years and (b) the amount he is due to pay back for such aid which was wrongfully assigned; [4206]
  470
  (2) what remedy is available to a person who is sued in court under custody proceedings who cannot afford to employ a solicitor and who faces counsel retained by the litigant who is on legal aid; [4130]

  (3) for what reasons the Legal Aid Board has granted legal aid to Mr. X, whose name has been sent to him, for contact and parental responsibility proceedings while the mother of his two children has been refused assistance with legal costs; and what account was taken of her income in assessing her eligibility for legal aid. [4207]

  Mr. Streeter
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the highest amount of legal aid granted to a litigant in the last five years. [4120]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1995–96 the largest total payment in a criminal case amounted to £2,946,000, which was paid to lawyers representing a defendant involved in a serious fraud trial. The largest payment in a civil case in the same year was £531,246 in a personal injury case, although the net cost of this case to the fund was nil.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Marchioness Incident
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the past 12 months from survivors of the sinking of the Marchioness, their relatives, friends and legal advisers; and if he will make a statement. [4305]

  The Attorney General
  Representations have mainly taken the form of questions by hon. Members in this House and in another place about the progress of the review undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which earlier this year re-examined the evidence given to the inquest jury in combination with the pre-inquest evidence. The Director of Public prosecutions announced on 26 July 1996 that the evidence was insufficient to justify any further criminal proceedings.

  I have received no subsequent representations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Industry Development Council
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of the consultation on a proposal to establish a Potato Industry Development Council for Great Britain. [5464]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our industry-wide consultation revealed overwhelming support for such a body. Therefore, with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I have decided to set up a Potato Industry Development Council for Great Britain.
  471
  The council will be responsible for:
  commissioning or assisting research and development;
  the collection and dissemination of statistical information;
  promotion including the development of exports; and
  promoting standard products and better defining trade descriptions and consistency in their use.

  The council will be funded by a dual statutory levy—an area levy on growers and a tonnage contribution charged at the first point of sale and paid by those purchasing potatoes.

  It is our intention that the order establishing the council, which will be made under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, will be laid before Parliament later this year.

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a surplus food scheme in 1997. [5465]

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. We intend to implement a surplus food scheme in 1997. The scheme will involve UK intervention beef only. It will be supplied in the form of canned stew steak, as was the case in 1995, and will be distributed to those on income support, family credit, jobseeker's allowance, the homeless and destitute and those living in welfare hostels.

  The scheme will involve up to 8,000 tonnes of beef containing no offal which will come from animals of less than 30 months of age. All this beef will have been purchased into intervention since April 1996.

  I hope that charitable organisations will find the surplus beef to be a help in their efforts.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research his Department has(a) planned, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated with regard to integrating proposals to increase deciduous woodland with the creation of woodland-based manufacturing economies; what financial commitments his Department has made in this area; and if he will make a statement; [3229]

  (2) what further support his Department proposes to promote existing projects currently experimenting with the integration of woodland-based manufacturing economies with an increase in the planting of deciduous woodland; and what assessment he has made of the advantages of supporting existing projects. [3225]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 November,Official Report, columns 399–400, by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland., my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was
  472
  completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) his Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3802]

  Mr. Boswell
  Records held centrally show that neither the core Department nor any of its agencies or associated bodies have held contracts with EDS since 1985. Consequently, there are no values, completion and modification details or in-house working to be reported. No job reductions in the Department fall to be reported, therefore.

  Tree Planting
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to continue with initiatives encouraging tree planting in England. [3120]

  Mr. Boswell
  We shall continue to encourage tree planting in England. As stated in our recent White paper "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside", we would like to see the area of woodland doubled over the next 50 years, subject to the necessary changes in the common agricultural policy.

  Beef Consumption
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 583, on the use of beef in processed food, if he will set out the arrangement for the removal authorised by the regulation, and the basis of the legal requirement to destroy beef held in intervention prior to 29 March. [4495]

  Mrs. Browning
  Beef held in intervention store on 27 March 1996 has been identified and, in accordance with regulation (EC) 1757/96, is being held separately from beef purchased after 27 March. Incineration will take place as soon as sufficient capacity can be identified. In any event, destruction must be completed by 31 March 1997. Article 23 of Council regulation (EEC) 805/68 provides the legal base for this destruction. None of the beef purchased before 27 March will be released for human consumption.

  BSE
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 581, for what reasons 24.9 per cent. of the BSE cases reported between January and March were not subsequently confirmed; what changes in the procedure used have been introduced since then; and what percentage of reported cases were subsequently conformed. [4494]

  Mrs. Browning
  The hon. Member for Wakefield who is familiar with the way BSE statistics are compiled will of course be aware that the figure given for BSE reported cases necessarily includes cases which recover are alternatively diagnosed and which are still under restriction.
  473
  As at 18 November for the period January to March 1996, 4,065 BSE suspect cases were reported in the United Kingdom. Of this figure 2,969 or 73 per cent. cases have been confirmed and 764 or 19 per cent. have proved negative. The difference is accounted for by inconclusive results, alternative diagnosis, animals which have recovered, animals still under restriction and pending results.

  For 1993 to 1995, BSE was confirmed in approximately 83 per cent. of the suspects compulsorily slaughtered—average figure for 1993 to 1995. Details of the 1996 confirmation rate will be provided in the November progress report, a copy of which should be placed in the Library of the House in December. This will include details provided in previous reports which indicate seasonal and age related variations in diagnostic rate. The period in question represents the period of each year when diagnostic rate is lowest.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 6 November,Official Report, columns 581–82, on experiments on BSE infectivity, what assessment he has made of the susceptibility of the mice challenged with BSE, relative to the susceptibility of other animals to comparable diseases. [4496]

  Mrs. Browning
  It is accepted among specialists in this field that there is a likely 3 log difference in sensitivity between the mouse model used for bioassay and assay directly in calves. A specific experiment intended to quantify that difference is still in progress, and while final interpretation is therefore not possible the evidence so far does appear to support the assumption of a 3 log difference.

  The same experiment also highlights the compromises that have to be made by using laboratory models in that mouse assays provide results sooner than cattle assays when testing tissues which contain low levels of infectivity, if any at all. Cattle inoculated intracerebrally with pooled lymph nodes or spleen are still clinically healthy 45 months later, but a negative end point will take a further 39 months to achieve. Mouse models currently in use are capable of detecting scrapie in sheep tissues outside the central nervous system. Furthermore, BSE transmits more effectively from central nervous tissue to mice than do known strains of scrapie. It therefore seems logical that the failure to produce a spongiform encephalopathy in mice by the inoculation of bovine tissue indicates at the very least that the level of infectivity in the source tissue is extremely low, and lower than seen with scrapie. It is not simply a reflection of an inefficient model.

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current level of support for the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research and that for each of the last 10 years, at current prices. [4730]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Institute of Grassland and Environment Research was not established until 1989. Using the gross domestic product deflator—1995–96 = 100—as provided by the Treasury, payments 474
  made to the institute by the Ministry, at constant prices, in respect of research and development projects are as follows:

  £000

  1990–91

  10.8

  1991–92

  8.1

  1992–93

  7.7

  1993–94

  7.8

  1994–95

  7.6

  1995–96

  7.4

  1996–971

  6.7

  1Estimate only.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to alter the current level of support for the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; and if he will make a statement; [4732]

  (2) if he will list the projected level of support for the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in current prices for the next three financial years. [4731]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry funds research to support its policies, and regularly appraises its research programme and the funding arrangements it has with contractors to ensure policy needs are met.

  Final figures on Ministry funding at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research for 1997–98 and beyond are not yet available, but it is apparent that the level is likely to be reduced. IGER has been made aware that certain projects coming to the end of their contracts in March 1997 will not be renewed. These decisions follow full and detailed review and represent re-prioritisation of the programme. Some of the funding released will be redirected to other priorities but some will go to open competition in the same area, thereby providing opportunities for IGER to submit new research proposals and bid for further funding.

  Butter
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that easy-spread butter is available to British consumers at the same price as ordinary butter. [4369]

  Mrs. Browning
  The European Commission has concluded that spreadable butter is ineligible for the preferential rate of duty which applies to imports of butter from New Zealand under the general agreement on tariffs and trade current access quota. This is a commercial matter which the New Zealand authorities are pursuing bilaterally with the Commission. Meantime, HM Customs and Excise has been notified of the Commission's conclusion and is acting upon it.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what time his Department's inspectors at Dover boarded the MV Cap Afrique to speak to the captain of the ship about the prevailing weather conditions on 6 November. [4247]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]Between 1430 and 1500 hours.
  475
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep were exported from the United Kingdom between July and October, inclusive, with the place of loading stated as(a) Abbotsland farm, Capel Le Ferne, Kent, (b) Lydden Court farm, Lydden, Kent, (c) Homestead farm, Petham, Kent, (d) Uffington Court farm, Adisham, Kent and (e) Coxhill farm, Shepherdswell, Kent on the export health certificate. [4249]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]The total number of sheep exported between July and October, inclusive, from these premises is:

  Number

  Abbotsland

  129,304

  Lydden Court

  77,687

  Homestead

  90,717

  Uffington

  24,121

  Coxhill

  47,462

  Total

  369,291

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which bodies his Department's inspectors at Dover consulted as to whether animals boarding the MV Cap Afrique for sailing on 6 November would be likely to be caused unnecessary suffering or injury while at sea under the terms of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1996; and what decision they reached; [4246]

  (2) what steps his Department's inspectors took to ensure that the master of the Cap Afrique exercised his judgment in accordance with article 11 of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1996 on 6 November; and what factors led them to agree that it was acceptable for the MV Cap Afrique to sail at the time it sailed. [4248]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]Information was sought from the Meteorological Office, HM Coastguard at Dover, the Dover harbour board port control office and the animal health and welfare veterinary section at the Ministry's headquarters. The master of the vessel was also consulted. The vessel sailed at approximately 1700 hours with 27 livestock vehicles.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he has instructed(a) that live animals exported for fattening may be sent to the staging post Ryckewaert-Arnout, Loker in Belgium and (b) animals for slaughter are prohibited from being sent. [4252]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]At the request of the Belgian authorities, animals for immediate slaughter are not consigned to these premises.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many audits of the work of local veterinary inspectors have been undertaken by his officials during(a) July, (b) August and (c) September for consignments of live sheep for export certified in the area of Dover. [1979]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]During the month of July, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials undertook audits of the work of local veterinary inspectors concerning the certification 476
  of live sheep for export on three days. The audits took place on two days during August and on two days during September.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many supervised loadings were undertaken by his officials in the area of Dover; and on what dates during(a) July,(b) August and (c)September, [1980]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]During the months of July, August and September, no supervised loadings at lairages were undertaken by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials in the area of Dover. During those months, officials inspected consignments of sheep at the point of loading on to the ship on the following dates:

  July 5

  July 8 (two sailings)

  July 10

  July 11

  July 12 (two sailings)

  July 15

  July 16

  July 17 (two sailings)

  July 18

  July 19 (two sailings)

  July 20

  July 22 (two sailings)

  July 23

  July 24

  July 25

  July 26 (two sailings)

  July 27

  July 29

  July 30 (two sailings)

  July 31 (two sailings)

  August 2

  August 3 (two sailings)

  August 5

  August 6

  August 7 (two sailings)

  August 8

  August 9 (three sailings)

  August 10

  August 12 (two sailings)

  August 14 (two sailings)

  August 16 (two sailings)

  August 18 (two sailings)

  August 20 (two sailings)

  August 21

  August 22

  August 23

  August 24

  August 27

  August 28

  August 30

  September 3

  September 5 (two sailings)

  September 10

  September 11

  477

  September 13 (two sailings)

  September 17

  September 19

  September 21

  September 24

  September 25

  September 27

  EU Animal Welfare Inspections
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when an inspector from the European Commission last visited Britain in respect of animal welfare matters; which areas and which types of premises the inspector visited; in respect of which EC directives; and if he will make a statement. [4164]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]From 4 to 7 November an inspector visited a range of premises and facilities in Britain in respect of directive 91/628/EEC.

  Cattle Certification
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovines animals were identified by his Department as having false or concealed identities on the first day of the special operation in the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan; and if he will make a statement. [2692]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 November 1996]During a portal check at Stranraer and Cairnryan on Monday 28 October 1996, a consignment of 34 bovine animals was returned to Northern Ireland due to inadequate certification. The matter is under investigation.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice his Department is circulating to Government Departments about the implementation of the working time directive. [4921]

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials have circulated advice to Departments and agencies. I have arranged for a copy of this advice to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Donaldson Report
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the recommendations of the Donaldson report which were referred to in his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 721, as under consideration (a) are to be included in the proposed Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill and (b) have been implemented to date; and if he will make a statement. [3507]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have accepted 91 of the Donaldson report's 103 recommendations and rejected only four. Eight remain under consideration. Of these, the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill includes enabling powers to take forward recommendations 95 and 478
  96, proposing charges for port state control inspections and emergency response. There is no intention of charging for marine search and rescue.

  A progress report giving details of the action taken as at 31 October on all the recommendations in the Donaldson report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Merchant Shipping (Waste Facilities)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the responses made to date to his Department's merchant shipping notice M1659 on the provision of waste reception facilities. [4127]

  Mr. Bowis
  Merchant shipping notice M1659 gave guidance to ports on the development of waste management plans; to date, 55 plans covering 67 ports have been received.

  Aircraft Noise (London)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aeroplanes have landed at Heathrow airport in 1996 before(a) 5 am, (b) 5.30 am, (c) 6 am, (d) 6.30 am and (e) 7 am. [3913]

  Mr. Bowis
  Records are not kept in the format requested, but I am able to provide the number of arrivals between 1 January and 31 October prior to 5 am, between 5.01 and 6 am, and between 6.01 am and 7 am. These figures have been taken from the London (Heathrow) airport runway utilisation logs produced by National Air Traffic Services.

  Arrivals at Heathrow between midnight and 7.00 am (local time) 1 January 1996 to 31 October 1996

  Midnight to 5 am: 1,419

  5.01 to 6 am: 2,358

  6.01 to 7 am: 9,025

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed legal challenge by the International Air Transport Association on the implementation date for the new aircraft noise limits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [4363]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the proposals put before the European Commission on 6 November to amend the environmental and safety requirements for vessels carrying irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive waste. [3917]

  Mr. Bowis
  An explanatory memorandum has been placed in the Library of the House on the Commission's proposal for a Council directive amending directive 93/75/EEC concerning minimum requirements for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports and carrying dangerous or polluting goods. The Government are not aware of any other current proposals to or by the Commission relating to the carriage by sea of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium or high-level radioactive wastes.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contractors were invited to tender for the phase 2 survey of the MV Derbyshire; how many contractors submitted tenders; what were the names of the contractors; what criteria were used to evaluate the tenders; and on what basis the contract was awarded to the Woods Hole institute. [4257]

  Mr. Bowis
  The project managers and the technical assessors to the Department and the European Commission advised that the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is the organisation best qualified, in terms of photographic and sonar technology and experience, to meet the objectives of phase 2. In light of this advice the Department and the European Commission agreed that the work should be carried out by Woods Hole.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the specifications drafted for phases 1 and 2 of the survey of the MV Derbyshire. [4258]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have placed in the Library copies of the specification for phase 1 and of the latest specification for phase 2.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of the phase 1 survey of the MV Derbyshire; and what is the estimated cost of the phase 2 survey. [4261]

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost of the at sea element of the phase 1 survey was approximately £0.175 million. The at sea and post-return data processing elements of the phase 2 survey are expected to cost £1.75 million.

  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the assessors' report of the phase 1 survey of the MV Derbyshire. [4260]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have placed in the Library the brief produced by the assessors on their return on the conduct and results of the phase 1 survey. Nothing further is being published but interested parties have had access to all the video material recorded during phase 1.

  Parking Meters (Enforcement)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the gross costs and charges of parking meter enforcement ceased to be part of the public accounts. [4357]

  Mr. Bowis
  Drivers who exceed the permitted time at a parking meter may incur an initial excess charge, subsequently followed by a penalty charge. Excess charges have always accrued to the local authority, which must maintain a separate account of income and expenditure arising from on-street parking places. Penalty charges are generally enforced by the serving by traffic wardens of a fixed penalty notice imposing a fine payable into court.

  Where local authorities have assumed responsibility for on-street parking enforcement under the Road Traffic Act 1991, penalty charge notices are, however, issued by local authority-employed parking attendants and the income is retained by the authority. All London boroughs had taken
  480
  on this responsibility by July 1994, but outside London only Hampshire county council, in respect of the city of Winchester, has yet done so.

  Railway Accident (Stafford)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what compensation arrangements have been offered to the owners of property alongside the railway as a result of the railway accident at Stafford; and in what ways these arrangements differ from those which British Rail used to make in similar circumstances. [4503]

  Mr. Watts
  Compensation for property owners suffering loss as a result of any railway accident is a matter between them and whoever may be found liable for the accident. Claims will continue to be dealt with on the basis of liability.

  There will be no disadvantage to those suffering injury or loss simply because there is no longer one railway operator. Arrangements have been in place from 1 April 1994 for third parties suffering injury and loss on the railways to claim against a single, industry-controlled, agency, Railway Claims Ltd., created for the purpose, rather than to identify and claim against one or more operators. These arrangements are supervised by the Rail Regulator, who requires all licensed rail operators, which include Railtrack, to join these claims handling and allocation arrangements, and to maintain adequate insurance.

  In the case of the Stafford accident, however, a privately owned freight wagon was involved. Private wagon owners are not licensed operators of trains and therefore cannot be obliged by the Rail Regulator to be part of the claims allocation and handling arrangements. However, that is no different from the situation before restructuring, when such owners, which have never been part of British Rail, were accountable for their own actions.

  Stevenage Railway Station (Incident)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Health and Safety Executive's inspectorate has to publish the report into the incident which occurred at Stevenage railway station on 10 and 11 August 1996. [4502]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is currently investigating these two incidents. At present, the HSE has no plans to publish a report.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the visit of the Minister for Railways and Roads to the Barking to Gospel Oak line on 28 October, what conclusions he has reached in respect of the ability of the line to produce an improved passenger service; and if he will make a statement. [4666]

  Mr. Watts
  My visit confirmed my view that the franchising of North London Railways, the operator of the Barking-Gospel Oak branch, will not only safeguard the current level of service on the line, but will bring about major improvements in its performance. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London gave details of the
  481
  franchising director's plans for the franchising of NLR in his oral answer to the hon. Member on 28 October, Official Report, columns 324–25.

  Not least among the benefits of franchising will be the replacement of all the rolling stock currently operating on the branch by the year 2000. I understand that Railtrack is to embark on a strategic study of the Barking to Gospel Oak route, to assess the scope for further developing its use by passenger and freight traffic.

  A1 (North London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the(a) traffic volumes, (b) traffic speeds and (c) bus speeds on the A 1 (Archway road) to Upper street, Angel, N1, (i) before it attained red route status and (ii) at present. [4667]

  Mr. Bowls
  Comprehensive surveys carried out for the Department of Transport on the section of the Al from Archway road to the Angel showed the following:

  All day average

  Volume pcu1/hr/ direction

  Traffic speed km/hr

  Bus speed km/hr

  Before red route surveys October 1990

  1,160

  16.7

  12.9

  After red route surveys October 1991

  1,250

  20.1

  14.7

  1pcu = passenger car unit.

  No further surveys of an equivalent nature have been carried out.

  Plymouth-Heathrow Flights
  Mr. Jaimeson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances he would be prepared to ring-fence the slots for flights between Plymouth airport and Heathrow. [3947]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 14 November 1996]The Government do not consider it appropriate to ring-fence airport slots for domestic routes, as this would distort the aviation market.

  Dartford River Crossing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of the public sector cost comparator for the Dartford river crossing(a) before and (b) after adjustment for risk transfer considerations; and on what dates these figures were first calculated. [4547]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]I have asked the chief executive of Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, dated 19 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the value of the public sector comparator for the Dartford River Crossing.
  A separate public sector comparator was not necessary in this case because bids to design, build, finance and operate the new Queen Elizabeth II Bridge and to operate and maintain the existing Dartford Tunnels were invited on the basis of both public and private procurement methods.

  Rail Routing Guide
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received about the routing guide recently published by the franchising director and the Rail Regulator. [4548]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]Since the routing guide became operational on 29 September, 36 complaints have been received by my Department, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator. The guide has been improved experimentally for a period of eight months, and may be amended in the light of experience.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3520]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 November. [3519]

  The Prime Minister
  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.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his assessment of the desirability of issuing planning policy guidance on the subject of sustainable development based on the recommendations made in agenda 21. [3131]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Planning policy guidance has been progressively updated to take account of sustainable development. My Department is also preparing a better practice guide on how to implement sustainable development more effectively through the planning system to be published next year.

  Rio Treaty
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the measures the Government have taken to implement the Rio treaty of June 1992. [3134]

  Mr. Clappison
  The UK has met its commitments in full under the action plan initiated by the Prime Minister following Rio and agreed by European and G7 colleagues.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies exist for maximising investment in local authority housing. [3135]

  Mr. Curry
  In 1996–97 under the housing investment programme £1.2 billion was allocated to local authorities in a competitive process which directed resources to those
  483
  authorities best able to make use of them. This competitive system encourages local authorities to consider all available mechanisms for the provision of social housing in their area and increase the contribution made by private finance.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities transferred(a) all and (b) part of their housing stock to new landlords in the last year. [3144]

  Mr. Curry
  The 1995 large-scale voluntary transfer programme included 11 local authorities which transferred all or part of their housing stock to 12 registered housing associations. Of these, four were partial transfers. In the current—1996—programme two local authorities have transferred their housing stock to two registered housing associations. One of these was a partial stock transfer and the other a whole stock transfer. A further three authorities propose to transfer all their stock by the end of this financial year.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to further extend the rough sleepers initiative. [3136]

  Mr. Curry
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 31 October,Official Report, column 187, I described the Government's plans to expand the rough sleepers initiative in London, extend it to Brighton and establish a new rough sleepers revenue fund. Together with the extension of the rough sleepers initiative to Bristol earlier this year, these measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensuring that there is no necessity for people to sleep rough.

  Local Authority Spending
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met local authority leaders to discuss the Government's contribution to local authority spending. [3137]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the leaders of the local authority associations at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 16 October to discuss the prospects for the 1997–98 settlement. He is also due to meet the chairman of the local authority associations this afternoon, 19 November, and the 1997–98 local government finance settlement will be one of the items on the agenda.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to bring forward projects under the private finance initiative.[3138]

  Mr. Gummer
  On 31 October we relaxed the capital finance rules to promote the private finance initiative in local government. We also issued guidance on those relaxations and associated arrangements for revenue support for PFI projects.

  Village Shops and Post Offices
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce rate relief for village shops and post offices. [3139]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government and Rating Bill, which was introduced on 24 October, will give 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief to certain general stores and post offices in villages of 3,000 people or less. This will halve their bills. Local authorities will be able to top the relief up to 100 per cent., if they choose.

  The Bill will also give local authorities significant new discretionary powers which will enable them to reduce or waive the rates bills of any other business in the village which is important to the local community.

  Local Authority Capital Investment
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the construction industry concerning local authority capital investment. [3140]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Some construction industry organisations have proposed in their budget submission the further release of local authority capital receipts to encourage capital investment.

  Thames Gateway Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the Thames gateway initiative. [3141]

  Mr. Curry
  Achieving the vision for Thames gateway is a long-term, 20 to 30–year project. Nevertheless, I am greatly encouraged by progress since publication of the Thames gateway planning framework in June 1995, both in general awareness of the area and its opportunities arid in the investment which is already being made.

  London Government
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning regional government in Greater London. [3142]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Environmental Targets
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on the setting of environmental targets. [3143]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government consider that sustainable development targets can be important and are ready to set quantified targets where this would be sensible. Such targets must be underpinned by scientific analysis and an assessment of the likely costs and benefits—including those to the environment. The Government list the quantified targets that they have agreed or are considering in their "The Common Inheritance" annual reports.

  Urban Land (Development)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much new development currently takes place on derelict or underused urban land; and what was the situation three years ago. [3145]

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon Friend the member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Gosport Borough Council
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will compensate Gosport borough council for the loss of standard spending assessments in 1997–98 and 1996–97 resulting from errors in the population date relating to service personnel in Gosport. [3930]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The population data used in standard spending assessments are those estimated by the Registrar General, using the best information available to him at the time. Information on service personnel is provided to the Registrar General by the Defence Analytical Services Agency. I understand that, following consultations with DASA, the Registrar General's estimates took account of concerns expressed by Gosport borough council relating to service personnel, to the extent that they appeared to him to be valid. I am aware that the methods of deriving the components of the population estimates are continually being refined; consequently, it is sometimes possible to produce updated estimates which differ from those provided previously for the calculation of SSAs. In the interests of certainty in financial allocations to local authorities, it is our general policy not to take account of any such subsequent refinements to any indicators, once the data have been used in the calculation of SSAs.

  Sewage Effluent (Hormones)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the report by Brunel university on the levels of female hormones found in sewage effluent discharged into watercourses and the sea around the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to ensure that water companies extract these hormones from discharges. [4482]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Agency commissioned this report. Further work is needed to establish whether these hormones need to be removed from sewage effluent. The water industry is investigating further how they are affected by the sewage treatment process. The Environment Agency plans further work to establish how the hormones are broken down naturally after discharge. With the Natural Environment Research Council, it is also examining whether the presence of these substances has any implications for fish populations and their fertility. Most of the rivers adjacent to the seven treatment works tested in this study support thriving fish populations.

  Water Payments
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when water payments ceased to be treated as part of Government accounts in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [4356]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information is as follows:

  In England and Wales, the 10 water and sewerage companies ceased to be within the public sector and their external finance requirement ceased to be counted against public expenditure for Government accounting purposes from the date of their privatisation on 12 December 1989;

  In Scotland, the external finance requirements of water authorities and domestic sewerage relief grants have counted against public expenditure since 1 April 1996; prior to April 1996 the capital expenditure financed by borrowing by the predecessor local authorities scored against public expenditure totals, as did central Government assistance through the revenue support grant and grants such as the rural water grant.

  In Northern Ireland, the Water Service, an executive agency of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, is the provider of public water and sewerage services and its finances are included in Government accounts.

  Disabled Facility Grants
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the legislation will be implemented in respect of disabled facility grants for local authorities. [4748]

  Mr. Clappison
  Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which includes the provisions on disabled facilities grants, will come into force on 17 December 1996.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many individuals have bought their council houses under the right to buy; and if he will make a statement.[3521]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities and new towns in England reported have that between the introduction of right-to-buy legislation in October 1980 and the end of June 1996—the latest date for which information is available—the total RTB sale is 1.270 million homes.

  Outer-London Boroughs
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received in respect of the London borough of Havering and other outer-London boroughs and the standard spending assessment and area cost adjustment. [3637]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration received a delegation led by the London borough of Havering which included representatives from the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Kingston and Sutton about the area cost adjustment on 11 November.
  487
  Other written representations have recently been received on standard spending assessments, including from outer-London boroughs.

  Sheffield City Council
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Sheffield city council regarding the area cost adjustment and its effect on Sheffield's standard spending assessment. [3826]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have received a number of representations on the area cost adjustment from Sheffield city council, both individually and as part of larger groups of local authorities. The city council has drawn attention to the reduction in its standard spending assessment which would follow from the recommendations of the review of the area cost adjustment. It has urged us not to implement those recommendations.

  Special Advertisement Control
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has made on the proposed abolition of the regime of special advertisement control; and if he will make a statement. [4798]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  After consideration of the extensive public consultation exercise over the future of special controls, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that they will remain for the time being.

  The regime of special advertisement control was originally introduced in 1948 to remove the proliferation of poster panels along main roads in the countryside and to ensure continued protection against further unsuitable displays.

  My Department has commissioned research into areas of special control of advertisements because little appeared to be known or properly understood about the practical consequences of ASCA designation. Contrary to the belief of many, the removal of the ASCA regime would not have created an "open season" on advertising in the countryside, because these special controls largely duplicate advertisement controls already available to local planning authorities. In particular, all new poster hoardings, except certain temporary displays screening building sites, would still have required consent from local planning authorities to be lawfully displayed. Consultation revealed that local authority associations, planning practitioners and amenity societies were not in favour of complete abolition of the regime as proposed, but wished to retain the level of protection it afforded. Having carefully considered these representations, my right hon. Friend believed it was right to continue with the ASCA regime for the time being. As for the future, we shall be looking to see if there are sensible modifications that can be made to existing systems to provide the same protection of amenity with less bureaucracy.

  Copies of all the representations made in response to the Department's consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 November,Official Report, column 323, on local authorities' receipts from business rates on sporting rights, on what he based his estimate of the total business rates paid on sporting rights. [4974]

  Mr. Gummer
  The total rateable value of sporting rights in England which are severed from the occupation of land is £8.2 million. No figures are available for sporting rights which are not severed and which fall to be valued as part of the land over which they are exercised. For estimating purposes, we took the additional rateable value of such rights across England to be between £2 million and £3 million.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she received the annual report and accounts of the Sports Council for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; if she will publish them; and if she will make a statement. [3866]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Sports Council's annual accounts for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 were received and laid before Parliament on the following dates:

  Account

  Received

  Laid

  1993–94

  19 July 1994

  17 October 1994

  1994–95

  18 September 1995

  29 November 1995

  1995–96

  23 July 1996

  9 September 1996

  The Sports Council's last annual report was published in 1993. The council hopes to publish an annual report for 1995–96 in early January 1997.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the administrative cost (i) per pupil, (ii) per school and (iii) per head of population incurred by central Government in each of the five years to 1995–96. [4508]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The direct administrative costs incurred centrally by the Department for Education and Employment for staff involved in schools work in England in 1995–96 were:

  (i) £2.46 per pupil

  (ii) £750 per school

  (iii) £0.41 per head of population

  489
  Comparable information for earlier years is difficult to obtain because of changes in the organisation of the Department. Provision of this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Special Needs Pupils
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what basis extra per capita funding is available for(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils with special educational needs. [4500]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When allocating funds to schools under local management of schools schemes, local education authorities may include factors in their formulae which allocate additional funding for non-statemented special educational needs based on proxy indicators of need such as free school meals, or direct indicators of need such as SEN audits. Such factors may be applied to both primary and secondary schools.

  Home-school Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the level of support for home-school contracts following the consultation on circular 6/96; and if she will make a statement. [4501]

  Mr. Forth
  The principle of home-school agreements is generally supported. Different views are taken on their use in admission arrangements. The proposals in the Education Bill would give school admission authorities the flexibility to decide for themselves.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she proposes to take to improve the participation of representatives of small businesses in committees of inquiry, advisory bodies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible.[4383]

  Mr. Paice
  In making appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies the Department conforms with the code and guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Central to the code is the overriding principle of selection based on merit. Where appropriate, ENDPB posts are advertised in the national press and/or details circulated to representational bodies. It is, of course, possible for an individual to nominate anyone for appointment to a post, including themselves. Advisory bodies are exempt from the OCPA code but are encouraged to comply with it when making appointments.

  The membership of the Department's only committee of inquiry, the committee of inquiry into higher education, was finalised only after wide consultation, including employers' representative bodies.

  Investors in People
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 378–79, if she will list the members of the Investors in People UK board whose main business activity involves the running of a firm with (a) under 100 employees, (b) under 50 employees, (c) under 20 employees and (d) under 10 employees. [4440]

  Mr. Paice
  On the board of Investors in People UK there are two directors whose main business activity involves the running of a firm where the number of employees fall within the categories above. These are:

  (a) under 100—Mr. Martin Henry, Lastolite Ltd. and

  (d) under 10—Mrs. Susan Todd, Polymedia Ltd.

  Bradford City Technology College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what right of appeal exists for parents refused a place for a child at the city technology college in Bradford; and what representations she has received about the catchment area of the Bradford CTC; [4441]

  (2) what guidance she has issued to the city technology college in Bradford concerning the catchment area of the college; for what reason (a) the BD15 postcode area is included and (b) the BD13 post code area is excluded; how far each is from the college; and if she will make a statement. [4442]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Dixons city technology college in Bradford recently sought approval from the Secretary of State for an extension to its catchment area. In the light of representations from Bradford LEA, the local diocesan boards and a number of schools in the vicinity, a limited extension was agreed for admissions for the 1997–98 academic year onwards. The extension includes the BD15 post code; coverage of the BD13 post code was not requested. Both these post code areas are some 2.5 miles from Dixons CTC at their nearest point, but BD13 extends further away from the school.

  Dixons CTC offer an appeal procedure for parents refused a place for their child. The appeals procedure is explained during the admissions process and written details are automatically given to parents of every unsuccessful pupil.

  Education Expenditure
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total United Kingdom education expenditure(a) at current prices, (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom gross national product and (c) as a percentage of total public expenditure in (i) 1966–67, (ii) 1976–77, (iii) 1986–87 and (iv) 1996–97. [2710]
  491
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 5 November I996]: Data for 1966–67 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Outturn information for 1996–97 is not currently available. Figures for 1995–96 have been substituted.

  1976–77

  1986–87

  1995–96

  Total UK public expenditure on education at current prices

  £7.8 billion

  £18.7 billion

  £35.9 billion (est· outturn)

  As a percentage of GNP

  5.9 Per cent.

  4.8 Per cent.

  5.1 Per cent.

  As a percentage of total public expenditure

  13.0 Per cent.

  11.3 Per cent.

  11.9 Per cent.

  Number of pre-16 pupils in the maintained sector

  10.113 million

  7.923 million

  7.957 million

SCOTLAND

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance his Department gives to encourage smallholdings. [3451]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  A comprehensive range of measures to support the agriculture industry in Scotland is available for all sizes of farms, including smallholdings and crofts. Details of grant schemes, sources of advice and other assistance are provided in "Scottish Agriculture: A Guide to Grants and Services", which can be obtained from local offices of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Oil Rig Construction Sites
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what is the total number of oil rig construction sites built by the Government which are currently derelict; and if he will list their current owners. [4282]

  Mr. Kynoch
  None.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make special funding available to local authorities for the reinstatement of former oil rig construction sites. [4284]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have no plans to make special funding available to local authorities for the reinstatement of former oil rig sites.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to regenerate derelict oil rig construction sites; and if he will make a statement. [4283]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I am not aware of any derelict oil rig construction sites in Scotland.
  492
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those oil rig construction sites where the Government have a duty to restore the area's former natural landscape. [4285]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There are none.

  House Completions
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the total number of completions of housing association properties for rent within Scottish Homes' approved development programme in each district and island council area in each of the years 1989–90 to 1995–96; [4286]

  (2) what was the total number of new starts of housing association properties for rent within Scottish Homes' approved development programme in each district and island council area in each of the years 1989–90 to 1995–96. [4287]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information is held by Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Mr. John Ward, to write to the hon. Member.

  Highlands and Islands Convention
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will be responsible for meeting the travel and accommodation expenses for those invited to attend the proposed convention of the highlands and islands; and if he will make a statement. [4845]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Yes.

  Deportation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons awaiting deportation are currently detained in(a) HM prison Greenock and (b) other prisons; what is the average length of detention served by such a person; and if he will make a statement.[3717]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 19 November 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question relating to the number of persons awaiting deportation who are currently held at HM Prison, Greenock and at other prisons and the average length of detention served by such persons.
  Persons detained in Scotland under the Immigration Act are normally held at Greenock, Edinburgh and Aberdeen prisons until their deportation order is served or their case is otherwise disposed of by the immigration authorities.
  There are currently six such people held at Greenock and one at Aberdeen. In the past twelve months the average length of detention has been 10 weeks.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments were made in Scotland in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000, (k) £200,001 and £250,000 and (l) £250,001 and over. [4216]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The information relating to payments made to farmers in Scotland under the 1995 arable area payments scheme is as follows:

  Number

  £0-£5,000

  4,990

  £5,001-£10,000

  708

  £10,001-£15,000

  856

  £15,001-£20,000

  626

  £20,001-£25,000

  512

  £25,001-£50,000

  1,200

  £50,001-£75,000

  394

  £75,001-£100,000

  148

  £100,001-£150,000

  97

  150,001-£200,000

  26

  £200,001-£250,000

  6

  £250,001 and over

  4

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments were made in Scotland in 1995–96 for set-aside under the arable area scheme(a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,0001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000 and (k) over £200,001. [4228]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]: The information relating to set-aside payments made to farmers in Scotland under the 1995 arable area payments scheme is as follows:

  Number

  £0-£5,000

  3,282

  £5,001-£10,000

  965

  £10,001-£15,000

  265

  £15,001-£20,000

  86

  £20,001-£25,000

  52

  £25,001-£50,000

  31

  £50,001-£75,000

  3

  £75,001-£100,000

  3

  There were no set-aside payments in excess of £100,000.

WALES

  Suicides
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of suicides among under-30s, broken down by gender, in Wales for each year since 1985. [3831]
  494
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested, provided by the Office for National Statistics, is given in the table.

  Suicides1 of Welsh residents—under 30

  Males

  Females

  1985

  63

  12

  1986

  36

  11

  1987

  59

  12

  1988

  49

  12

  1989

  42

  10

  1990

  65

  8

  1991

  60

  18

  1992

  70

  15

  1993

  64

  6

  1994

  72

  12

  1995

  72

  13

  1International Classification of Diseases (9th revision): E950-E959, E980-F989 (excluding E988.8).

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to liaise with universities and colleges with a view to assisting those with dyslexia into further education and higher education; and if he will make a statement. [4203]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. Guidance to the Welsh funding councils on their responsibilities for students with learning difficulties was set out in separate letters dated 5 May 1992 and 27 May 1992, paragraphs 22–24 and 28–32 respectively. Copies of both letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Section 4 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 specifies how the Further Education Funding Council for Wales must discharge its further education duties—sections 2 and 3 of the Act—in relation to students having learning difficulties. It required the FEFCW to have regard to the requirements of those with learning difficulties and to arrange placements for them in independent specialist institutions where appropriate; it also defines a learning difficulty for the purposes of the Act.

  In practice, the FEFCW makes funds available to colleges of further education to secure provision appropriate for students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. This provision can be discreet programmes in independent living skills or it can be to support inclusion on mainstream programmes of study. Assistance for students with dyslexia is generally of the latter kind. The FEFCW also makes available funds to colleges to diagnose dyslexia and support students by providing specialist tutorials and equipment. In addition, the FEFCW has allocated funds specifically to promote on-course support for students with functional literacy needs. One of the most successful colleges in diagnosing dyslexia among students and offering support is Deeside college, which is the only college in the UK registered to use the Irlan diagnostic methodology developed in the USA.

  In addition to the above, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 places a duty on the FEFCW to require further education colleges to publish disability statements about the provision of facilities for education made by a college in respect of people with disabilities. A copy of Welsh

  495
  Office circular 48/96, setting out the FEFCW's and colleges' responsibilities in this area, is also in the Library. The governing bodies of higher education institutions are required to provide disabled students with a description of the facilities for education and research that they offer.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of persons who are currently employed in opencast mining activities in Wales. [4392]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Coal Authority estimates that there were 708 full-time employees in opencast mining in Wales at August 1996.

  Home Energy Conservation Act 1995
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 will come into force in Wales. [4486]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  On 1 April 1997.

  Environment Annual Report
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources he intends to commit to ensure the implementation of the commitments to environmental improvement set out at pages 30 to 35 of his annual report on the environment in Wales. [4722]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend's expenditure plans, including those for his environment programmes, are published annually in the Welsh Office's departmental report. The environment in Wales fifth report—pages 24 and 10—included reference to the increased provision that has been made available to the Countryside Council for Wales and to the resources provided to support the work of the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee.

  Roads
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the stress points on motorways and major roads in Wales; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the investment and regeneration of the economy. [4552]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The south Wales area traffic study, published in December 1990, and the north-east Clwyd traffic study, published in November 1991, looked at traffic levels, traffic growth and future capacity requirements for the road network in those areas of Wales. There is a degree of assessment of potential economic growth associated with such studies. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House.

  Health Care Emergency Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the primary care emergency centres belonging to(a) general practitioner co-operatives, (b) Healthcall and (c) other providers which are grant aided from his Department's funds. [5005]
  496
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally. Responsibility for monitoring general practitioner out of hours arrangements rests with individual health authorities.

  Public Bodies (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sanctions he can apply to public bodies dependent on his Department's approval for expenditure on capital projects which overspend on such projects by 10 per cent. or more; and what procedures he has to detect unapproved overspends of 10 per cent. or more. [5007]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office determines levels of delegated authority for capital expenditure by public bodies such as non-departmental public bodies and NHS trusts. Within these delegations the bodies themselves are responsible for managing their capital projects, including any possible overspends. For projects above the delegated limits a variety of arrangements are in place in the Department to ensure effective monitoring and control of expenditure. These are tailor-made to meet the particular circumstances of the capital expenditure programme concerned. Expenditure on major capital projects is monitored and reported quarterly to senior management of the Department, and to the Treasury. Information about major capital projects is included in the Welsh Office departmental report, Cm 3215.

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 November,Official Report, column 295, on what date he was notified by the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust of the overspend above the estimated £2.4 million cost of relocating its headquarters; and on what date he was informed of the trust's internal costing of the project at £3.1 million. [5009]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials were notified on 29 January 1996 of a possible overspend of £556,000 and on 28 August 1996 that the trust's internal costings for the scheme had been £3.1 million.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to paragraph 32 of the district auditor's summary reports entitled "Review of Centralisation, including Command and Control, South—East Wales Ambulance Trust", if he has approved the £1.2 million overspend on the relocation project; and if he has received from the trust the details of the increase in costs and the explanations recommended by the district auditor. [5008]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The detailed explanation for the increase in the costs of the scheme has not yet been received.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the(a) net expenditure and (b) gross expenditure on the national health service in Wales in each year since 1974–75. [5033]

  Mr. Hague
  Information for the years 1974–75 to 1994–95 is published in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", table 2.01 of the finance
  497
  chapter. Provisional figures for 1995–96 can be found in the appropriation accounts for 1995–96. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  Secondees and Consultants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 210, concerning departmental staffing, in which divisions each of the (a) secondees and (b) consultants is working; and how many of the secondees are (i) full—time equivalent and (ii) part—time equivalent.[5035]

  Mr. Hague
  Two secondees work in the finance group; nine work in the Health Department and two are in the health professional group. Only one of the 13 is part—time.

  The consultants are working on projects for various divisions throughout the Welsh Office.

  Eurofreight Terminal Grant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning grant in aid and agency funding for a Eurofreight terminal at(a) Wentlooge Levels and (b) Pengan Moors. [5006]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials have corresponded with the agency about possible funding for a Eurofreight terminal in south Wales. The agency is aware it will need my approval before incurring expenditure on a scheme for a European freight terminal.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish that part of the service level agreement between his Department and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerned with the supervision of the Welsh community health councils; and what proposals he has to ensure that community health councils have the freedom to criticise under the proposals for the new service level agreement. [5032]

  Mr. Hague
  Community health councils will shortly be consulted on a revised service level agreement. I will place a copy of the agreed document in the Library of the House when that consultation has been concluded.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the exercise initiated by the letter of 31 May 1995 from his Department to chief executives of health authorities and NHS trusts concerning the patients charter; how many news stories it generated; and to what extent doctors and nurses participated in his Department's press conference. [5034]

  Mr. Hague
  The cost to each health authority and NHS trust of publicising its achievements is an issue for each chief executive.

  Information on the level of NHS generated news stories is not held centrally.

  Members of the NHS were not invited to participate in the Welsh Office launch of the 1995 NHS performance tables.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those bodies in Wales to which he appoints one or more members and give the total cost of remuneration to those members(a) in salary or allowances and (b) expenses in the last year for which figures are available. [4797]

  Mr. Hague
  The information available centrally about the appointments I make, including remuneration, is contained in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 September 1996", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information on expenses is not collected centrally.

TREASURY

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts his Department, agencies and associated bodies have had with EDS for each year since 1985; what was the value of each contract; if he will indicate for each contract(a) if it was completed, (b) what modifications were made at the request of (i) the company and (ii) the Department and (c) if work under contract is being undertaken in-house; and if he will make a statement on the number of job reductions in his Department arising from the contracting out of work by EDS. [3799]

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1985, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments have had one contract with EDS—the Inland Revenue's 10–year contract for the provision of IT services, which started on 1 July 1994 and which was valued at £1.03 billion.

  The contract has been modified a number of times to make minor procedural changes by mutual agreement to benefit both parties. Significant changes have been made in only three main areas: the completion of the master service level agreement, to define the quality and quantity of service, as required by the terms of the contract; an extension to the contract to include staff who provided support to the Inland Revenues's statistics and economics office; extension of the licensing for Oracle software and to provide for 24-hour remote support;

  It is not always possible to attribute each change to either the Inland Revenue or EDS, although the change for the transfer of additional staff was at the Inland Revenue's request.

  No work under contract with EDS is undertaken in-house, although the Inland Revenue has a small team of IT technical specialists to validate EDS proposals.

  Inland Revenue staff reductions arising from the EDS contract were 2,074. They were transferred to EDS in two tranches on 1 July 1994 and 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names of those hon. Members who have made representations to him in support of(a) Oracle and (b) EDS Ltd. involvement in the computerised environment for self-assessment. [1633]
  499
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations.

  Married Person's Tax Allowance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost in lost revenue of introducing a married person's tax allowance based on(a) £500 per married person, (b) £750 per married person and (c) £1,000 per married person. [3901]

  Mr. Jack
  The cost would depend on whether the proposed allowance replaced or was in addition to the existing married couple's allowance and whether it was available at marginal rates or at a fixed rate.

  Parent Tax Allowance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the impact on revenue of introducing a tax allowance for a nominated parent of(a) £200 per child, (b) £500 for a second and subsequent children and (c) £200 for a first and second child and £500 for successive children. [3903]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table. The assumption has been made that the nominated parent is the husband, allowances are given at marginal tax rates and any unused allowances cannot be transferred to the wife. Lone parents are also assumed to be entitled to these allowances.

  Level of child tax allowance (£)

  First Child

  Second Child

  Third/fourth Child

  Cost in a full Year1 £ million

  (a)

  200

  200

  200

  450

  (b)

  200

  500

  500

  750

  (c)

  200

  200

  500

  530

  1Based on a projection Of the 1994–95 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he has for checking the rise in the pound; [4752]

  (2) if he will list the performance of the pound sterling against the other currencies of the European monetary system in terms of the 2 per cent. and the 6 per cent. bands for every quarter since the last quarter of 1992. [4765]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate but do not have a target for sterling. The exchange rate is only one of many factors that has to be taken account of in policy decisions.

  Data on sterling exchange rates against other EU currencies can be found in "Main Economic Indicators", which is published monthly by the OECD.

  Income Tax Cuts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the reduction in tax paid per year in cash terms, and as a percentage of the total gross annual income, for each income decile group, resulting from a 1p reduction in the standard rate of income tax. [4467]
  500
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]Information on the effect of a 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax at 1996–97 income levels is given in the table.

  Group of taxpayers per cent.

  Reduction in income tax £ million

  Reduction as a percentage total income per cent.

  Top 10

  520

  0.4

  11-20

  380

  0.6

  21-30

  270

  0.5

  31-40

  190

  0.5

  41-50

  130

  0.4

  51-60

  80

  0.3

  61-70

  40

  0.2

  71-80

  10

  under 0.1

  81-90

  0

  0

  Bottom 10

  0

  0

  Outstanding Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is owed to the Inland Revenue in uncollected(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax, (c) inheritance tax, (d) capital gains tax and (e) VAT. [4470]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 November at column 228 in respect of figures for uncollected income tax, corporation tax and VAT.

  The figures for inheritance tax and capital gains tax are given in the table. In this question, "uncollected" has been taken to mean "uncollected and subsequently written off or remitted".

  Inland Revenue collection accounts are drawn up each year to the end of October, and the table therefore shows the amounts as at the end of October 1995—the latest date for which figures are available. The information can also be found in the board of Inland Revenue's annual report.

  Type of tax

  Amount remitted/written off (rounded to nearest £ million) October 1995

  Inheritance tax

  2

  Capital gains tax

  34

  With the exception of small amounts remitted or written off in respect of Development Land Tax and miscellaneous other duties, and subject to rounding, these two items represent the amounts included under 'other taxes' in the previous answer.

  Inland Revenue Computers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what physical protection and contractual safeguards he has arranged to prevent breach of taxpayers' confidentiality by software suppliers allowed emergency access from terminals in America and Australia to the Inland Revenue's computer system. [1978]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 November 1996]I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 13 November at columns 226–27.
  501
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what alternatives to overseas support for the protection of Inland Revenue data against operational risk of a shutdown or slowdown of the self-assessment system were examined by Ministers before revision of the Oracle contract. [1635]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]I considered all alternative technical support arrangements, but none provided the degree of protection that is required.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Inland Revenue data can be accessed by Oracle facilities overseas before legal or other contractual safeguards concerning the security or holding of that data have been contractually agreed between Oracle and persons representing the Inland Revenue. [1637]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]No.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the computerised environment for self-assessment systems will be fully operational and in what way policy has recently changed with regards to security aspects of the holding of Inland Revenue self-assessment data. [1638]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]The new self-assessment computer system is being brought in in stages, as required, over a period of some 18 months. As regards the security aspects, I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 13 November at columns 226–27.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons it is not possible to require under the contract between Oracle and the Inland Revenue adequate back-up facilities for fault correction in the computerised environment for self-assessment. [1639]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 November 1996]Oracle is supplying, under contract to Electronic Data Services Ltd., the Inland Revenue's information technology partner, full back-up support for the self-assessment computer system.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the security of information systems of the EDS-Oracle contract with the Inland Revenue. [1642]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]I refer to the reply I gave on 13 November to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) at columns 226–27.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances he has received from(a) EDS and (b) Oracle as to the security of information held on the Inland Revenue database when transmitted outside of the United Kingdom. [1643]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]I refer to the reply I gave on 13 November to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) at columns 226–27.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if subcontractors and contractors otherwise associated with EDS or Oracle will be subject to the same contractual terms as EDS or Oracle themselves in the protection and security of the Inland Revenue database. [1645]
  502
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]Yes.

DEFENCE

  Gaul Trawler
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy personnel were present on the trawler, Gaul, during the six months before her disappearance off north cape; and if he will make a statement. [4364]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of Royal Navy personnel ever having been aboard the trawler Gaul.

  There has for some time been speculation about the loss of the Gaul in February 1974 and allegations that she was involved in intelligence-gathering activities. My Department has no record of the Gaul, under that name or her earlier name, Ranger Castor, ever having been engaged on any task for the Royal Navy, or any evidence to call into doubt the findings of the independent investigation which concluded that she foundered and sank with all hands in heavy seas.

  Unfilled Posts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many billeted posts were unfilled on operational ships of the Royal Navy on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [3522]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is the responsibility of the chief executive of the Naval Manning Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from F. M. Malbon to Mr. Robert Key, dated 19 November 1996 I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of unfilled billets on operational ships of the Royal Navy, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency.
  Currently, 28 RN officer and 560 RN rating. billets in operational ships, submarines, front line squadrons and ships' flights are unfilled, representing, respectively, 1.7% and 4.6% of the total of such billets.
  The deployment of sufficient suitably skilled and experienced manpower to individual billets and management of a progressive reduction in manpower gapping are prime objectives of the Naval Manning Agency. The Agency's Corporate Plan, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library, states that the NMA will seek to fill more than 93% of total officer billets and 93.5% of total rating/other rank billets in 1996/1997. Priority is given to those ships, submarines, squadrons and units engaged in high priority operations.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Continued Service Incentives
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by rank and by specialism, the number of posts in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, where employment attracts financial incentives to continue in service beyond the contracted dates, including the value of such bounty; and if he will make a statement. [3523]

  Mr. Soames
  A number of bonuses have been recently introduced to aid retention of personnel in key areas. These bonuses are paid in return either for waiving the right to give notice for a further period, staying until a
  503
  pensionable point or completing a commission, or for re-engagement, thereby saving recruitment and training costs. Details of values of these bonuses and numbers are given in the tables, although some will vary from year to year where the bonus is on-going, depending on numbers eligible:

  Royal Navy marine engineering mechanics (MEMs)
  One-off bonus of either £1,500 or £3,000 to waive the right to give notice to leave the Royal Navy for six or 18 months respectively, to general service and submarine MEMs who have between three and nine years service on 15 September 1996.
  Total targeted: 1,276
  Predicted take-up: 893
  Royal Navy Sea Harrier Pilots (Lieutenant/Lt. Commander) (£10,000 to Sea Harrier pilots who complete a medium career commission, or serve to qualify for a pension on an extended medium career commission or full career commission).
  Total targeted 1996–97: 4
  Predicted take-up 1996–97: 3
  Predicted take-up per annum thereafter: 4
  Army re-engagement bounty (Private)
  £1,400 to soldiers in Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery and Infantry who waive their right to give notice for 12 months.
  Total targeted: 2,960
  Total accepted, as at 30 June 1996: 2,693
  Royal marine re-engagement bounty (all ranks below substantive Corporal)
  One-off bounty of £2,000 to Marines in seven shortage categories who had already given notice or were in a position to do so, to waive their right to give notice to leave the Royal Marines for six months.
  Total targeted: 1,123
  Total accepted: 820
  In addition, there is a tri-service committal bonus of £2,000 payable to all ratings/other ranks/airmen/airwomen on completion of 4½ and 7½ years' in the Army, provided that the individual has not given notice to leave at these points.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee's report on its first visit to the protection and life sciences division, Potion Down. [3966]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which was set up in July this year, has now visited all the establishments in the Department which conduct experiments involving animals. The committee intends to submit a report to my Department's chief scientific adviser next month and I would expect publication early in the new year.

  State Opening of Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of military personnel who took part in the state opening of Parliament. [4670]

  Mr. Soames
  Military personnel are paid on a daily basis irrespective of their duties and their involvement in the state opening of Parliament is not separately costed.

  Advanced Strike Technology
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since the 504
  signature last December of the joint advanced strike technology memorandum of understanding with the United States. [5104]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The United States Department of Defence announced on 16 November the selection of two main contractors, Boeing Defense and Aerospace Group and Lockheed Martin, to carry out the concept demonstration phase of the proposed joint strike fighter aircraft programme. The concept demonstration will be carried out against a requirement to whose formulation the UK has contributed. The United kingdom has now arranged to participate in the phase with a view to the possible purchase of the short take-off, vertical landing version of the aircraft as a successor to the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier in the second decade of the next century. The concept demonstration is expected to cost $2.2 billion and will include the construction, by each of the two contractors, of flying demonstration aircraft. The United Kingdom will contribute $200 million to the phase and we expect a significant share of the work to be carried out by British industry.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Services (Newry and Mourne)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total expenditure on(a) hospital services and (b) social services in each year since 1990 in the Newry and Mourne district; and what is the projected expenditure for each year to 2000. [3962]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. The table discloses the total expenditure in the Newry and Mourne district on hospital specialties and personal social services for the years 1992–93 to 1994–95. An analysis of expenditure for 1995–96 is not yet available. However, total expenditure for the year is £40,488,000.

  This information has been extracted from supplementary statements produced to provide further analysis of the expenditure disclosed in the annual accounts. The format of these statements was revised in 1992–93. Prior to this, the information requested is not available.

  The projected expenditure on hospital services and social services for each year 1996–97 to 1999–2000 is not available.

  505

  Newry and Mourne District

  Year

  Hospital Specialties

  Personal Social Services

  1992–93

  19,157,679

  8,773,605

  1993–94

  20,114,722

  11,651,572

  1994–95

  20,160,969

  13,772,833

  The information has been extracted from the analysis of expenditure reported in the FR22 of the Newry and Mourne directly managed unit for each year 1992–93 to 1993–94. For 1994–95 the information has been extracted from the FR22 returns of the Newry and Mourne HSS trust.

  Public Order
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been prosecuted under(a) article 7 and (b) article 20 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order in each year since its enactment. [1071]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of persons proceeded against under articles 7 and 20 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, by year is as follows:

  From 27 April 1987: five with obstruction—under article 20(1)

  1988: 21 with obstruction—under article 20 (1)

  1990: one with obstruction—under article 20(1)

  1991: one with endeavouring to break up a lawful procession, under article 7(1)

  1995: two with obstruction, under article 20(1)

  Up to 31 July 1996: 16 with obstruction, under article 20(1)

  Terrorist Bombs (Compensation)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy with respect to seeking compensation from the Irish Republic for damage caused by terrorist bombs manufactured in that state and exploded in the United Kingdom. [2455]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for co-operation between relevant Northern Ireland Office departments in respect of providing accommodation for students. [3586]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list public expenditure on benefits for each of the last 10 years(a) in real terms and (b) as a proportion of total spending for Northern Ireland. [3863]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  Benefit spend1 £ million

  Benefit spend as percentage of total spend

  1985–86

  2,001.3

  29.24

  1986–87

  2,108.1

  30.17

  1987–88

  2,103.6

  29.51

  1988–89

  2,058.8

  27.28

  1989–90

  2,044.5

  27.59

  506

  Year

  Benefit spend1 £ million

  Benefit spend as percentage of total spend

  1990–91

  2,076.4

  28.95

  1991–92

  2,229.6

  30.25

  1992–93

  2,425.1

  31.33

  1993–94

  2,632.6

  32.49

  1994–95

  2,773.3

  33.30

  1995–962

  2,896.8

  33.78

  1Figures are at 1996–97 prices.

  2Estimated figures.

  Disabled Access
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the percentage of commercial premises in Northern Ireland which have disabled access. [3837]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Small Firms
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of firms in Northern Ireland have fewer than 20 employees. [3838]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are 18,178 non-agricultural enterprises in the private sector in Northern Ireland which have fewer than 20 employees. This accounts for 87.7 per cent. of the total number of enterprises registered for VAT or PAYE.

  Low Pay
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) women and (b) men in Northern Ireland earn less than £1.50 per hour. [3847]

  Mr. Ancram
  The two main sources of earnings information for Northern Ireland are the new earnings survey—NES—and the labour force survey—LFS. Both of these record an insufficient number in the sample earning less than £1.50 per hour to provide a reliable estimate.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on housing benefit in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; and at what cost to public funds. [3849]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Housing benefit case load (000s)

  Cost (£ million)

  1985–86

  180.0

  108.7

  1986–87

  186.9

  118.0

  1987–88

  202.4

  125.4

  1988–89

  160.7

  126.9

  1989–90

  164.2

  143.5

  1990–91

  164.2

  159.2

  1991–92

  166.5

  170.3

  1992–93

  166.5

  192.1

  1993–94

  178.5

  222.4

  1994–95

  180.7

  251.8

  1995–96

  182.4

  278.6

  Homelessness
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homeless people there are in Northern Ireland; and how many of these are under 18 years of age. [3855]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The chief executive has advised me that it is not possible to give the number of people who are homeless at a particular time. However, information available is as follows:

  Year

  Total1

  Under 18

  1995–96

  4,319

  195

  1996–972

  2,421

  109

  1Accepted as in priority need and awarded priority status.

  2From April 1996 to September 1996.

  The total number presenting as homeless for 1995–96 was 10,468 and from April to September 1996 was 5,678.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases are currently being administered by the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland. [3857]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from P. Devlin to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 13 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the number of cases being administered by the Child Support Agency in Northern Ireland.
  In August 1996, the number of cases being administered by the Northern Ireland Child Support agency was 23,042. This is the most recent data available and is a count of all those cases maintained clerically or on the Child Support Computer System which are not classified as being closed.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Pension Schemes
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State. for Northern Ireland what percentage of people in Northern Ireland have been members of(a) private pension schemes and (b) occupational pension schemes in each of the last 10 years. [3859]

  Mr. Moss
  The total number of people in private pension schemes and occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland is not available. However, information on the number of people with an appropriate personal pension—APP—used to contract out of the state scheme, and the number of people paying contracted-out contributions, is available. Data on private pensions or occupational pensions which are not contracted-out are not held by the Department of Social Security.
  508
  The information is given in the table:

  Year

  APP (thousands)

  Percentage of Workforce

  Percentage of population

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  70

  10.4

  6.2

  1989–90

  71

  10.4

  6.2

  1990–91

  85

  12.3

  7.4

  1991–92

  99

  14.3

  8.6

  1992–93

  110

  15.9

  9.6

  1993–94

  117

  16.9

  9.9

  1994–95

  121

  17.7

  10.2

  1995–96

  119

  17.2

  10.0

  Year

  Contracted out (thousands)

  Percentage of Workforce

  Percentage of population

  1984–85

  219

  —

  —

  1985–86

  218

  —

  —

  1986–87

  221

  —

  —

  1987–88

  225

  —

  —

  1988–89

  251

  —

  —

  1989–90

  251

  —

  —

  1990–91

  245

  —

  —

  1991–92

  240

  —

  —

  1992–93

  235

  —

  —

  1993–94

  227

  —

  —

  1994–95

  225

  —

  —

  Low-income Households
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the percentage of households in Northern Ireland which have net incomes after housing costs of less than half the national average; and how many(a) people and (b) children are involved. [3861]

  Mr. Moss
  The percentage of households in Northern Ireland with net income—disposable income—after housing costs below half the United Kingdom average is 31.4.

  (a) The percentage of persons in Northern Ireland households with net income after housing costs below half the United Kingdom average is 20.8.

  (b) The percentage of children in Northern Ireland households with net income after housing costs below half the United Kingdom average is 18.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what percentage of people in Northern Ireland who are registered disabled are(a) currently unemployed and (b) long-term unemployed; [3839]

  (2) how many people are registered disabled in Northern Ireland. [3846]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  509
  Letter from Ian Walters to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 15 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your questions about Registered Disabled People (RDP) in Northern Ireland.
  The total number of Registered Disabled People at 30 September 1996 was 9,340. Of these, 2,080 are actively seeking employment with help from the Training & Employment Agency's Disablement Advisory Service. The balance of 7,260 RDP are either in employment or are not currently seeking employment for reasons which include illness or a deterioration in their condition which precludes them, at least in the short-term, from the labour market.
  Of the active jobseekers 1,400 are long-term unemployed, ie they have been unemployed for 12 months or more.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in work in Northern Ireland received the family credit allowance; at what cost to public funds; and what proportion of total social security spending this constituted for each of the last 10 years. [3840]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Family credit recipients1

  Cost £ million

  Proportion of total social security spending Per cent.

  1985–86

  15,006

  11.8

  0.96

  1986–87

  14,744

  13.7

  1.03

  1987–88

  14,825

  13.9

  0.99

  1988–89

  14,839

  28.0

  1.91

  1989–90

  14,908

  29.1

  1.87

  1990–91

  14,500

  31.5

  1.84

  1991–92

  13,801

  37.2

  1.91

  1992–93

  15,819

  47.8

  2.16

  1993–94

  18,555

  56.5

  2.29

  1994–95

  22,052

  62.1

  2.34

  1995–96

  23,668

  71.0

  2·51

  1Figures taken at April of each year.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the percentage of the population of Northern Ireland on means-tested benefit in each of the last 10 years. [3862]

  Mr. Moss
  The means-tested benefits are as follows:income support
  family credit
  housing benefit

  These benefits are paid to benefit units. A benefit unit is a single person or a couple, with or without children. As these statistics are for benefit units, it is not appropriate to use the population of Northern Ireland as the denominator. The number in receipt of the benefits is as follows:

  Year

  Income support1

  Family credit2

  Housing benefit3

  1987

  190,780

  14,825

  202,400

  1988

  183,715

  14,839

  160,000

  1989

  182,235

  14,908

  164,200

  1990

  188,643

  14,500

  164,200

  510

  Year

  Income support1

  Family credit2

  Housing benefit3

  1991

  196,342

  13,801

  166,500

  1992

  204,940

  15,819

  166,500

  1993

  215,365

  18,555

  178,500

  1994

  222,621

  22,052

  180,700

  1995

  226,251

  23,668

  182,400

  1996

  229,461

  24,995

  186,700

  1Data at May each year.

  2Data at April each year.

  3Average number receiving at any time.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of pensioners in Northern Ireland rely solely on means-tested benefits. [3860]

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Uninhabited Housing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) publicly owned houses and (b) privately owned houses in Northern Ireland he estimates are currently uninhabited. [3848]

  Mr. Moss
  The latest figures available are at 31 December 1995 and are as follows:

  Public sector: 5,123

  Private sector: 27,921

  Total: 33,044

  Construction Industry
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of people employed in the construction industry in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [3852]

  Mr. Moss
  Northern Ireland employees in employment in the construction industry at June of each year are as follows:

  Year

  Employees in employment

  1986

  26,370

  1987

  27,600

  1988

  28,180

  1989

  27,910

  1990

  28,760

  1991

  27,120

  1992

  26,000

  1993

  25,030

  1994

  23,550

  1995

  23,370

  1996

  22,430

  Note:

  Figures round to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Quarterly Employment Survey.

  Private Tenants
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those receiving housing benefit in Northern Ireland are tenants of private landlords. [3850]
  511
  Mr. Moss
  The latest figures available are for March 1996, when 17.5 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland receiving housing benefit were tenants of private landlords.

  Public Housing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many publicly owned houses have been built in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [3851]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is provided in the table.

  New build completions by Northern Ireland Housing Executive 1986 to 1995

  New built completions

  1986

  2,222

  1987

  1,805

  New housebuilding and maintenance by Northern Ireland housing executive 1986–87 to 1995–96

  Northern Ireland housing executive expenditure

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  New housebuilding

  Cash

  63.9

  56.6

  55.9

  51.3

  39.0

  40.3

  34.9

  35.4

  35.6

  48.5

  1995–96 prices

  98.6

  82.9

  76.8

  65.9

  46.3

  45.0

  37.6

  36.9

  36.5

  48.5

  Maintenance

  Cash

  58.4

  63.4

  64.7

  70.1

  78.9

  79.5

  85.9

  86.8

  99.5

  101.8

  1995–96 prices

  90.1

  92.9

  88.8

  90.0

  93.7

  88.8

  92.4

  90.5

  101.9

  101.8

  Total NI housing budget (cash)

  535.7

  545.6

  557.7

  516.3

  511.4

  536.3

  551.6

  558.9

  573.7

  602.8

  Public expenditure NI block (cash)

  4,499.0

  4,828.0

  5,111.0

  5,395.0

  5,525.0

  6,018.0

  6,580.0

  7,085.0

  7,407.0

  7,823.0

  Percentage

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Newbuild expenditure (cash) as percentage of total NI housing budget

  11.9

  10.4

  10.0

  9.9

  7.6

  7.5

  6.3

  6.3

  6.2

  8.0

  Newbuild expenditure (cash) as percentage of PE NI block

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  Maintenance expenditure (cash) as a percentage of total NI housing budget

  10.9

  11.6

  11.6

  13.6

  15.4

  14.8

  15.6

  15.5

  17.3

  16.9

  Maintenance expenditure (cash) as a percentage of PE NI block

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.2

  1.3

  1.3

  Negative Equity
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes in Northern Ireland are affected by negative equity. [3856]

  Mr. Moss
  I am advised by the lending institutions that there is no reported negative equity in Northern Ireland.

  Benefit Fraud
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of cases of benefit fraud discovered in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years, indicating the estimated cost of these cases. [3858]
  512

  New build completions by Northern Ireland Housing Executive 1986 to 1995

  New built completions

  1988

  1,653

  1989

  1,577

  1990

  1,324

  1991

  961

  1992

  958

  1993

  888

  1994

  878

  1995

  1,362

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the total amount spent on the (i) building and (ii) maintenance of publicly owned housing in each of the last 10 years(a) in real terms, (b) as a proportion of the housing budget and (c) as a proportion of the total budget for Northern Ireland. [3854]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is provided in the table.

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Jim Fleming to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 14 November 1996:
  As Mr. Wylie, Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency is absent at present, I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question on benefit fraud.
  You have asked for the number of cases of benefit fraud that have been discovered in the last ten years and also an indication of the estimated costs of these cases.

  513
  The potential cost to the Exchequer if these cases had not been detected is referred to as estimated benefit savings and details are set out on the attached table for the past nine financial years. Information is not available for 1986/87.
  No records have been maintained on the cost of investigating each case.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Number of benefit fraud cases detected and the estimated benefit savings

  Year

  Number of cases of benefit fraud detected

  Estimated benefit savings £ million

  1987–88

  2,625

  3.6

  1988–89

  2,852

  3.7

  1989–90

  3,820

  4.6

  1990–91

  5,897

  9.46

  1991–92

  6,567

  10.4

  1992–93

  6,580

  10.56

  1993–94

  7,260

  11.57

  1994–95

  6,990

  11.61

  1995–96

  5,179

  15.62

  Prisoners (Compassionate Temporary Release Scheme)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of the compassionate temporary release scheme for prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [3827]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 19 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the Parliamentary Question that you asked about the review of the Compassionate Temporary Release Scheme.
  The Prison Service has now completed its review of policy in relation to unescorted temporary release. We have concluded that Liam Heffernan's failure to return from leave was an individual action which does not in itself have implications for the behaviour of other prisoners who might apply for temporary release. We will therefore continue to operate a policy under which prisoners may be granted unescorted leave. However, we will continue to consider applications very carefully and they will be refused if it is felt that there is a significant risk of absconding or danger to the prisoner or the public. As an additional safeguard. we have put in place new arrangements that will ensure that certain sensitive cases, including the cases of prisoners applying for leave outside Northern Ireland, will be scrutinised by a more senior official in Prison Service Headquarters.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sawn Wood Imports
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of sawn wood were imported into the United Kingdom in the past year from the 10 countries which are the principal exporters of sawn wood to the United Kingdom. [4485]
  514
  Mr. Lang
  UK imports of sawn wood1 in 1995 are given in the table:

  Thousand metric tones

  Sweden

  841

  Canada

  360

  Finland

  343

  Latvia

  343

  Russia

  263

  Portugal

  155

  USA

  89

  Irish Republic

  73

  Estonia

  61

  Brazil

  56

  World

  3,040

  1Sawn wood is defined by headings 248.2 and 248.4 of the Standard International Trade Classification, revision 3.

  EU Working Time Directive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the representations received on the working time directive. [4279]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has received a wide range of representations about the working time directive. Many of these have been from employers or employer organisations concerned about the directive's potential implications for industry.

  Royal Observatories
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent to date on preparing for the bidding process for the royal observatories; and from which budget these sums were paid. [4569]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A total of £495,000 has been spent to 31 October 1996 on implementing the recommendations of the prior options review of the royal observatories. This has been paid from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's allocation from the science budget.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on the level of Government support for nanotechnology; and if he will make a statement. [4566]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have carefully considered this report which recognises the long-term public support for nanotechnology provided by both the research councils and by my Department. At least two new projects relevant to nanotechnology have recently been introduced through the foresight programme, including a national centre for microelectronics. Developments in nanotechnology have potential applications in many other generic priorities identified by foresight.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the ways in which his Department has(a) demonstrated by example and (b)promoted externally, the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through environmental auditing; and if he will make a statement. [4532]
  515
  Mr. Page
  My Department has taken significant steps to improve its own environmental performance. It reduced energy costs by 14.13 per cent. in the five years to March 1996 and is preparing new targets for reducing both energy usage and waste. In keeping with the commitment in the 1990 White Paper "This Common Inheritance", the Department undertook a review of its own environment management capabilities. Work has started on implementing potential improvements identified. Advice has been given to line management to ensure that the environment has been taken into account in policy formulation. Two examples of this in practice will feature in "Case studies of environmental appraisal of policies in Government Departments", scheduled to be published in the new year.

  My Department has encouraged UK business to adopt positive environment management, which includes the audit of environmental performance, as a way to deal with the environment as a strategic business issue. To this end, the Department commissioned the United Kingdom Accreditation Service to create an accreditation system to allow accredited certificates to be issued against BS 7750, and latterly, ISO 14001.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take in order to improve the participation of representatives of small business in committees of inquiry, advisory bodies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible. [4384]

  Mr. Page
  In making appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies, my Department complies with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments Central to this guidance is the overriding principle of selection based on merit.

  Appointments to advisory and other bodies are not formally required to comply with the OCPA guidance; however, the Department takes the commissioner's guidance into account in all its appointments, including the principle of appointment on merit.

  Where appropriate, we aim to ensure that representation on public bodies is well balanced. It is of course possible for anyone to put forward nominations for public appointments, including themselves.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of defaults since the beginning of the small firms loan guarantee scheme by the size of loan. [4386]

  Mr. Page
  Information is not available on loans prior to April 1988. Since that date, of the 35,574 loans guaranteed the following number have defaulted:Loans up to £30,000: 7,159
  Loans above £30,00 and up to £100,000: 2,632
  Loans above £100,000: 140

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many specialist lenders in the technology 516
  sector have been added to the loan guarantee scheme's list of approved lenders since his Department's review earlier this year. [4385]

  Mr. Page
  None. The criteria for potential lenders is currently being formulated.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was spent on research into(a) Alzheimer's disease, (b) cancer, (c) stroke, (d) heart disease and (e) HIV-AIDS in each financial year since 1989 in constant prices; and if he will make a statement. [1398]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 6 November 1996]All the data provided are in 1995–96 prices.

  Data on Government funding of HIV-AIDS research are collected centrally by the Department of Health. Funding from 1989–90 is summarised in the table:

  £ million

  HIV-AIDS

  1995–96

  n/a

  1994–95

  23.2

  1993–94

  22.7

  1992–93

  21.5

  1991–92

  22.8

  1990–91

  21.9

  1989–90

  17.3

  Research funding from the Medical Research Council for the other areas between 1989–90 and 1995–96 is summarised in table:

  £ million

  Alzheimer's disease1

  Cancer

  Stroke

  Heart disease

  1995–96 (where available)2

  1.97

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–952

  1.40

  13.5

  3.5

  11.7

  1993–943

  n/a

  13.9

  0.9

  6.4

  1992–933

  n/a

  14.5

  1.1

  5.8

  1991–923

  n/a

  15.2

  0.7

  5.9

  1990–913

  n/a

  16.1

  0.5

  7.0

  1989–903

  n/a

  17.1

  0.5

  7.1

  1Data earlier than 1994–95 are not readily available.

  2Figures using previous definitions of research areas.

  3Figures using current definitions of research areas.

  The Scottish Office's expenditure on the other areas is as follows:

  Alzheimer's disease £

  Cancer £

  Stroke £

  Heart disease £

  1995–96

  52,124

  433,447

  134,068

  148,647

  1994–95

  53,070

  781,171

  118,061

  260,216

  1993–94

  70,448

  1,004,889

  147,865

  376,769

  1992–93

  58,280

  487,314

  69,666

  317,441

  1991–92

  36,720

  202,408

  101,339

  156,466

  1990–91

  66,187

  98,179

  8,215

  28,941

  1989–90

  41,733

  273,342

  102,698

  92,853

  517
  Department of Health/national health service expenditure, including England and Wales, on the other areas is summarised as follows:

  Alzheimer's disease2 £

  Cancer £

  Stroke and heart disease £

  1995–961

  91,000

  7,438,000

  3,580,000

  1994–95

  154,653

  7,353,694

  1,699,134

  1993–94

  148,037

  7,671,858

  468,648

  1992–93

  82,579

  7,623,011

  269,186

  1991–92

  83,819

  7,968,350

  251,456

  1990–91

  108,215

  7,402,607

  309,185

  1989–90

  0

  7,694,481

  333,873

  1Estimated figures.

  2NHS figures are not available.

  The Northern Ireland Office does not hold the information in the form requested and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  When inspecting these data on the funding of research, it is important to bear in mind the way different research areas support each other—many diseases and conditions are multi-factorial. For example, if we consider the Medical Research Council's portfolio, cancer studies are underpinned by a significant amount of basic research in other areas—for example, the genetic blueprint and health, some £37 million; molecules and cells, £65 million, infections and immunity, £60 million; and some of the more basic research into HIV-AIDS has added enormously to our understanding of viral disease in general.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to implement fully the decision of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive. [4293]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 November 1996]I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on Tuesday 12 November 1996,Official Report, column 155.

  Defence-related Trade
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 has been used by the Government in each of the past four years; and for what purposes. [3715]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]Since November 1992, 16 orders have been made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 as amended by the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1990. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, S.I. No. 3092, replaced the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991 as amended. The 1992 order was subsequently amended by the following statutory instruments: 1992 No. 3305, 1993 No. 1020, 1993 No. 1692, 1993 No. 1825, 1993 No. 2515, 1993 No. 3264 and 1994 No. 534. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, S.I. No. 1191, revoked all of the 1992 order, as amended, save that part applying to the exportation of antiques. The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 has been amended by the following statutory instruments: 1994 No. 1632, 1994 No. 2518, 1994 No. 2711, 1995 No.518
  3060, 1995 No. 3249, 1996 No. 1341 and 1996 No. 2663. The purpose of each of the orders listed is given in the explanatory notes accompanying each statutory instrument.

  Research Centres
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations, as part of the prior options review, are being undertaken of the ownership of(a) the Horticulture Research Centre, (b) the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, (c) the Scottish Crop Research Institute, (d) the Institute of Arable Crops Research, (e) the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, (f) the John Innes Centre and (g) the Silsoe Research Institute; and if he will name the owners of the land and buildings occupied by these institutes. [4740]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]The prior options review process, as set out in the guidelines placed in the Library on 26 January,Official Report, column 422, looks at a wide range of options for institutes, including change of ownership. This might take the form of, for example, transferring ownership to a university or other independent organisation, or privatisation as a company limited by guarantee.

  As for current ownership of the land and buildings of the institutes in question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 18 July, Official Report, column 616, for details of the last four. Horticulture Research International operates from six sites, four of which are owned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, one by the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research, and one by Wye college, university of London. The details of the two institutes in Scotland are:

  Location (unit, farm etc.)

  Owner of land and buildings

  The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  Cragiebuckler

  MLURI

  Hill of Mackalea, Glenlivet

  Crown Estate Commissioners

  Glensaugh

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Sourhope

  First Roxburgh Bahamian Trust

  Auchope

  Mrs. J. Clarke

  Hartwood

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Red Deer Farm, Glensaugh

  Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission and Fasque Estates

  Kingseat of Outh

  Forestry Commission

  The Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Mylnefield/Bullionfield

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Gourdie

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Liff Hospital Gardens

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Lonsdale

  SCRI

  East Pilmore Holding

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  Carslea, Station Crescent

  Four private individuals

  Blythbank

  Roslin Institute

  Major General Prabowo
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet Major General Prabowo during his forthcoming visit to Britain. [4699]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 November 1996]I have no plans to meet Major General Prabowo during his private visit to the UK. The Minister of State, Foreign and
  519
  Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), did, however, meet him on 12 November to thank him on behalf of the British Government for securing the safe release in May of the British hostages in Irian Jaya.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years since 1979 national insurance contribution rates were changed; and what was(a) the total effect on revenue on each change and (b) the cumulative effect on total contribution income from all the changes over the period from 1979 to 1995–96. [3046]

  Mr. Heald
  Information in respect of employee and employer class 1 national insurance contributions and self-employed class 4 profits-related national insurance contributions is in the tables. If the contribution structure, rates and level of contracted-out rebates in force in 1979–80 had applied in 1995–96, employees would have paid about £5.3 billion less and employers would have paid about £5.6 billion more in national insurance contributions and surcharge for that year. If the class 4 contribution rate in force in 1979–80 had applied in 1995–96, the self-employed would have paid about £0.3 billion less in national insurance contributions for that year.

  The self-employed class 2 flat-rate national insurance contribution has generally increased in line with the increase in prices. Apart from a £1.25 a week reduction made in October 1985, the class 2 rate rose gradually from £2.10 in 1979–80 to £5.75 in 1995–96. Thus, the financial effect has been relatively small. The financial effect for the voluntary class 3 national insurance contribution, which is set at 10p less than the class 2 contribution, is similarly small.

  Class 1A national insurance contributions for company cars and car fuel were introduced at a rate of 10.4 per cent. in 1991–92 and raised £470 million in the first year of collection. The reduction in the rate of 0.2 per cent. from April 1994 reduced revenue by some £9 million.

  Table A

  Year

  Employee class 11 National Insurance rates (Percentage)

  Estimated change in2 contribution revenue (£ million)

  1979–80

  6.5

  —

  1980–81

  6.75

  3+225

  1981–82

  7.75

  3+1,020

  1982–83

  8.75

  3+1,096

  1983–84

  9

  3+285

  1984–85

  9

  —

  1985–86

  9 (9,7,5 from October)

  4-100

  1986–87

  9,7,5

  —

  1987–88

  9,7,5

  —

  1988–89

  9,7,5

  —

  1989–90

  9,7,5 (2 + 9 from October)

  5-1,000

  1990–91

  2 + 9

  —

  1991–92

  2 + 9

  —

  1992–93

  2 + 9

  —

  1993–94

  2 + 9

  —

  1994–95

  2 + 10

  3+1,914

  1995–96

  2 + 10

  —

  Notes:

  1Not contracted-out rates shown. The level of contracted-out rebate for the period shown was:
  520
  2.5 per cent. —1979–80 to 1982–83; 2.15 per cent. —1983–84 to 1987–88; 2.0 per cent. —1988–89 to 1992–93; 1.8 per cent. —1993–94 to 1995–96.

  2Figures show the cash change in revenue for the tax year in which the change in contribution rate was made.

  3Estimates taken from Government Actuary reports on the various Contributions Re-Rating Orders and Social Security (Contributions) Bills which introduced the changes in contribution rates.

  4Reduced rates for employees were introduced from October 1985. Estimate taken from the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1985–86 and relates to part year only.

  5Revised structure applied from October 1989. Estimate given in the Official Report, 24 April 1989, column 670 and relates to part year only.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Table B

  Employer class 11 National Insurance rates

  Estimated change in contribution3 revenue (excluding effect of National Insurance Surcharge)

  Year

  (percentage)

  (£ million)

  1979–80

  210 + 3.5

  —

  1880–81

  210.2 + 3.5

  4+248

  1981–82

  210.2 + 3.5

  —

  1982–83

  210.2 + 3.5/2

  —

  1983–84

  210.45 + 1.5/1

  4+309

  1984–85

  210.45 + 1 nil

  —

  1985–86

  10.45(10.45,9, 7 from October)

  530

  1986–87

  10.45, 9, 7, 5

  —

  1987–88

  10.45, 9, 7, 5

  —

  1988–89

  10.45, 9, 7, 5

  —

  1989–90

  10.45, 9, 7, 5

  —

  1990–91

  10.45, 9, 7, 5

  —

  1991–92

  10.4, 8.6, 6.6, 4.6

  4-290

  1992–93

  10.4, 8.6, 6.6, 4.6

  —

  1993–94

  10.4, 8.6, 6.6, 4.6

  —

  1994–95

  10.2, 7.6, 5.6. 3.6

  4-909

  1995–96

  10.2, 7, 5, 3

  4-254

  Notes:

  1Not contracted-out rates shown. The level of contracted-out rebate for the period shown was:

  4.5 per cent.—1979–80 to 1982–83; 4.1 per cent.—l983–84 to 1987–88; 3.8 per cent.—1988–89 to 1992–93; 3.0 per cent.—1993–94 to 1995–96.

  2National insurance surcharge.

  3 Figures show the cash change in revenue for the tax year in which the change in contribution rate was made. The rate of national insurance surcharge was 3.5 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1981–82. In 1981–82 the surcharge raised about £3.65 billion. Thereafter, the rate of surcharge was gradually reduced until its abolition in October 1984. The financial effect of the surcharge is not included in the table.

  4Estimates taken from Government Actuary reports on the various Contributions Re-Rating Orders and Social Security (Contributions) Bills which introduced the changes in contribution rates.

  5The upper earnings limit for employers' contributions was abolished and reduced rates for employers of the lower paid were introduced from October 1985. Estimate taken from the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1985–86 and relates to part year only.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Table C

  Year

  Self-employed class 4 National Insurance rates (percentage)

  Estimated change in1 contribution revenue (£ million)

  1979–80

  5

  —

  1980–81

  5

  —

  1981–82

  5.75

  2+21

  1982–83

  6

  2+10

  1983–84

  6.3

  2+12

  521

  Table C

  Year

  Self-employed class 4 National Insurance rates (Percentage)

  Estimated change in 1 Contribution revenue (£ million)

  1984–85

  6.3

  —

  1985–86

  6.3

  —

  1986–87

  6.3

  —

  1987–88

  6.3

  —

  1988–89

  6.3

  —

  1989–90

  6.3

  —

  1990–91

  6.3

  —

  1991–92

  6.3

  —

  1992–93

  6.3

  —

  1993–94

  6.3

  —

  1994–95

  7.3

  2+117

  1995–96

  7.3

  —

  Notes:

  1 Figures show the change in revenue for the tax year in which the change in contribution rate was made.

  2Estimates taken from Government Actuary reports on the various Contributions Re-Rating Orders and Social Security (Contributions) Bills which introduced the changes in contribution rates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Elderly People (Income Support)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the elderly population in each of the member countries of the European Union receives (i) all and (ii) part of their income from means-tested social assistance and income support schemes. [3048]

  Mr. Heald
  Such information as is available is contained in table 2.8 at page 42 of "Social Assistance in OECD Countries: Synthesis Report"—York university, 1996, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Benefits Agency (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff were employed in the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices in(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) at the latest available date. [3387]

  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 from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings, dated 18 November 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many staff were employed in the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices in (a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) at the latest available date.
  The information requested is shown in the table below and is based on the position at the dates shown.

  Peterlee

  Seaham

  1 April 1993

  111.0

  47.0

  1 April 1994

  111.4

  45.0

  1 April 1995

  104.5

  44

  1 April 1996

  92.0

  37.0

  1 November 1996

  92.0

  37.0

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants entitled to invalid care allowance currently receive payment of the invalid care allowance(a) in Lancashire and (b) in the United Kingdom; [3793]

  (2) how many claimants entitled to invalid care allowance have an underlying entitlement and receive no payment of invalid care allowance (a) in Lancashire and (b) in the United Kingdom; [3794]

  (3) how many claimants of invalid care allowance are currently entitled to invalid care allowance (a) in Lancashire and (b) in the United Kingdom. [3792]

  Mr. Burt
  As of 11 November 1996, 353,580 people in Great Britain were entitled to payment of invalid care allowance. It is estimated that less than 0.1 per cent. of these have had payment of their benefit suspended while changes of circumstances, which may affect entitlement, are investigated. Figures for Lancashire are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on underlying entitlement for claimants in Great Britain and in Lancashire is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Responsibility for social security matters in Northern Ireland with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from which bodies the Child Support Agency is seeking the address of Mr. X, whose name has been sent him. [4205]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The sources the agency can use in seeking to establish the addresses of clients are governed by child support legislation. Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive, will write separately to the hon. Member with details of this case.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the jobseeker's allowance. [4473]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no plans to review the jobseeker's allowance. However, we have in place a long-term programme of monitoring and evaluation to measure whether jobseeker's allowance is achieving its policy objectives. The Benefits Agency and Employment Service have set up an extensive monitoring programme to assess implementation and performance of the new allowance with frequent reports to managers.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the procedures for determining whether an individual is capable of work under the jobseeker's allowance; and what account is taken of the local general practitioner's opinion. [4474]

  Mr. Evans
  Where there are doubts about a person's capacity for work under jobseeker's allowance, the case is referred to the adjudication officer. Whether a person is capable or incapable of work is determined under the
  523
  same provisions that apply to incapacity benefit. A medical certificate issued by a person's own general practitioner is normally accepted as evidence of incapacity until such time as an assessment has been made under the all work incapacity test.

  Under the short-term sickness provision in jobseeker's allowance, a person may be treated as capable of work for up to two weeks on two occasions in any one jobseeking period or in each 12 months where the jobseeking period lasts 12 months or more. A general practitioner's statement is not required for the purpose of determining whether these provisions apply.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the appeals procedure in respect of the jobseeker's allowance. [4475]

  Mr. Evans
  Full details of the Government's proposals for new appeals arrangements are set out in the Green Paper, "Improving decision making and appeals in Social Security", Cm 3328 which was published on July 23. The proposals cover all social security benefits including jobseeker's allowance, child support maintenance, war pensions and Contributions Agency rulings.

  The consultation period ended on 18 October, and the responses received are currently being independently analysed. We plan to publish the results of the consultation exercise early in the new year, and I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library. Final decisions on the best way forward will be taken in the light of all the representations received.

  Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will place in the Library a draft of the form which benefit claimants have been required to use for lodging appeals since 21 October; and when the form itself will be available; [4799]

  (2) what instructions he has issued to ensure that benefit appeals which do not comply with the requirement to use an approved form because the form is not yet available are admitted for hearing by tribunals; [4800]

  Income support appeals

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  Total number heard and decided

  11,674

  9,583

  10,720

  5,920

  Total number decided in appellants favour and percentage

  6,033

  3,777

  3,841

  3,057

  (51)

  (39)

  (35)

  (51)

  Decision in appellants favour: appellant only attended

  Number decided

  1,159

  1,328

  1,424

  1,170

  Percentage success

  43

  45

  43

  43

  Decision in appellants favour: representative only attended

  Number decided

  1,983

  480

  257

  209

  Percentage success

  78

  66

  49

  48

  Decision in appellants favour: appellant and representative attended

  Number decided

  1,456

  1,473

  1,533

  1,156

  Percentage success

  68

  65

  65

  63

  524
  (3) by what means he will monitor the effects of the benefit regulations which came into force on 21 October, with particular reference to (a) the number of oral hearings, and (b) the outcome of appeals to (i) social security, (ii) disability, (iii) medical and (iv) child support appeal tribunals. [4802]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A copy of the new version of leaflet NI 246 "How to Appeal", including the form for appeal, has today been placed in the Library. This version replaces the April 1996 version, a copy of which was previously placed in the Library. Distribution of the new version to all Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices has now commenced and is scheduled for completion by the end of this week.

  All Benefits Agency and independent tribunal service offices have clear guidance that all appeals lodged by letter or on the old print of the appeal form are acceptable, so long as they contain the information required. If sufficient information is not provided, the independent tribunal service will write to the appellant for the missing information. In these cases, the time limit for appealing may be extended by up to 14 days. After the new form is available, any appeal lodged in the form of a letter will still be acceptable, with the same proviso as above, as the regulations make clear.

  The effects of the new regulations will be monitored. This will include using existing statistical information collected regularly on the outcome of appeals, by benefit, broken down between: hearings attended by the appellant and/or his representative and hearings not attended by either. This information will be based, of course, only on those appeals which proceed to a hearing; excluded will be appeals which are superseded or withdrawn, struck out or ruled out of jurisdiction.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support appeals were heard by social security appeal tribunals in each of the last four quarters for which information is available; how many and what percentage were decided in the appellant's favour where the appellant(a) attended the hearing but was not represented, (b) was represented but did not attend, (c) attended and was represented and (d) did not attend and was not represented. [4801]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is contained in the table.
  525

  Income support appeals

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  Decision in appellants favour: no attendance

  Number decided

  1,435

  496

  627

  522

  Percentage success

  32

  13

  13

  14

  Source:

  "Quarterly Social Security Appeal Tribunal Statistics" published by analytical services division.

  Unemployment Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in each month since April 1996 have signed on and received unemployment benefit when they had a working partner who was working 16 hours or more a week. [4911]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

HEALTH

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many research projects were refused funding by the Medical Research Council in each of the last three years. [3064]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of research projects declined by the Medical Research Council in each of the past three years is as follows:

  Year (academic)

  Declined

  1993–94

  1,085

  1994–95

  1,224

  1995–96

  1,282

  The MRC's mission is to support high-quality research, and applications are rejected because they are not rated and ranked sufficiently highly to succeed in the competition for funds.

  Rikki Neave Case
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects his special inspectors to complete their investigation of Cambridgeshire social services and the case of Rikki Neave; and if he will make a statement. [4197]

  Mr. Burns
  We take very seriously the evidence of management failings and poor practice by Cambridgeshire social services department which have come to light in the Rikki Neave case. I have therefore asked the social services inspectorate to conduct an inspection of child protection services in Cambridgeshire next spring, following completion of the independent audit of child protection practice already commissioned by Cambridgeshire. Inspections are normally completed within three weeks of their start date, and I shall take a keen interest in the team's findings.
  526
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue interim guidance to social services departments to prevent a repetition of cases similar to that involving Rikki Neave; and if he will make a statement. [4198]

  Mr. Burns
  The Children Act 1989 provides a clear statutory framework within which local authorities must work to protect children from abuse. Section 31 sets out the circumstances in which authorities may apply for care orders or supervision orders if they are satisfied that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. "Working Together Under The Children Act 1989", the Government's guide to inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse, provides clear and detailed guidance on the handling of cases of child abuse. It emphasises the importance for all agencies of taking decisive action when this is clearly indicated to protect children at risk of significant harm. We see no need to supplement "Working Together" with interim guidance at this stage.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often approval has been sought from his Department for the closure of accident and emergency departments in the past 12 months; and if he will indicate in each case if the closure was subject to prior consultation.[3892]

  Mr. Horam
  Consultation is required by law on any substantial change in services proposed by a health authority. If the local community health council contests the proposals they are automatically referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for a decision. One proposal substantitally to change an accident and emergency service has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the last 12 months.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria govern the recommended distance between(a) minor accident treatment service units and (b) accident and emergency departments. [3893]

  Mr. Horam
  The distance between these facilities will vary according to local conditions. Health authorities are responsible for determining what is needed in their area.

  Mentally Ill Patients (Deaths)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities and NHS trusts on the burial to mentally ill patients who have died in their care. [3931]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department issued guidance entitled "Patients who die in hospital" to health authorities and NHS trusts in January 1992, copies of which are available
  527
  in the Library. This guidance includes a section on funerals for those who die in hospital where no arrangements are made by relatives.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental inspections were undertaken by the community dental service from 1990 to the latest available date in each school, including special schools, within the Sunderland health authority area. [4418]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings in dental health costs to Sunderland health authority resulting from artificial fluoridation of public water supplies for the five years after the implementation of the proposed scheme. [4416]

  Mr. Malone
  Studies have consistently shown that the prevalence of dental decay in fluoridated areas is between one third to one half lower than in comparable non—fluoridated water areas. Cost savings can be expected from reductions in the need for dental treatment in fluoridated areas.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health (1) how many confirmed human cases of tuberculosis have been reported in each month since 1978; and if he will make a statement; [4489]

  (2) if he will list the annual percentage of confirmed human cases of tuberculosis reported for each year since 1978, by region; [4712]

  (3) what was the percentage of children (a) vaccinated and (b) unvaccinated against tuberculosis in each year since 1978 by region. [4726]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not held centrally in the forms requested. The number of notifications of tuberculosis to the Office for National Statistics, and formerly the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, are published by local authority in the publications "MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics," annually, and "MB2 Infectious Disease Statistics", quarterly. Numbers of tuberculin skin tests by age and result and BCG vaccination by age are given in the Department of Health's publication, "Vaccination and immunisation, summary information, England". Information in this form has been published annually since 1988. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to undertake a programme of vaccination promotion for tuberculosis; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of such a programme. [4463]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government recommend that Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine to protect against tuberculosis should be routinely offered to all school children the ages of 10 and 14 years. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises the United Kingdom health departments on immunisation, reviewed this recommendation and advised that the 528
  schools immunisation programme should continue. Ministers have endorsed this and health authorities were advised of the result of the review in July 1996. In addition, immunisation continues to be offered to certain high-risk groups outside the routine school programme, including babies born to parents from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis.

  The Health Education Authority published an information leaflet for parents about BCG immunisation for schoolchildren last year. This is currently being revised and will be qualitatively evaluated later this year. The Department of Health is also funding a pilot project to provide appropriate and non-intimidating information about tuberculosis for asylum seekers and refugees. The BCG programme has been a main plank of the UK's successful tuberculosis control programme.

  Ambulance Service
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the level of funding of the ambulance service and about its response times. [4420]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure on ambulance services in England rose by 8 per cent. in real terms between 1991–92 and 1994–95, to a total of £l533 million.

  In 1995–96 ambulances responded to more than 2.6 million emergency calls within the patients charter target times, compared with some 2 million in 1992–93.

  Superannuation (Nurses)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to announce his decision on whether practice nurses can re-enter the NHS superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement; [4259]

  (2) if he will undertake an actuarial study of the cost of allowing general practice nurses to re-enter the NHS superannuation scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4400]

  Mr. Malone
  We are currently considering the case for allowing general practitioners' practice staff to enter the national health service pension scheme and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) people and (b) children under the age of 18 years have been diagnosed as alcoholics in England in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4413]

  Mr. Burns
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 7 November,Official Report, columns 627–28.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the connection between drinking at an early age and alcohol-related problems in later life. [4409]
  529
  Mr. Burns
  None. However, the Department is commissioning work to produce estimates of alcohol-related mortality, which will form a basis from which estimates of life years lost due to alcohol-related illness could be made.

  Medicines (Cost)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the time taken to reimburse pharmacists for the cost of medicines, to bring them into line with the repayment scale demanded by medicine wholesalers. [4504]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 12 December 1995 at column 580.

  Barnet General Hospital
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total sum spent by the Wellhouse Trust on consultancy fees relating to the private finance initiative for the rebuilding of Barnet general hospital, phase Ib. [3218]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist local authorities in the funding of the cost of asylum seekers. [3122]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department of Health has established special grants to assist local authorities in supporting (i) children and their families, and (ii) unaccompanied children. Officials from relevant Government Departments are also working with the local authorities most concerned to assess the scale of the problem of adult asylum seekers.

  NHS Facilities (Repair and Maintenance Backlog)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outstanding repair and maintenance backlog at NHS facilities by regional health authority for each year since 1988.[4300]

  Mr. Horam
  The outstanding repair and maintenance backlog by regional health authority is shown in the table. The information is available only from 1989–90.

  The figures include estimated costs for maintenance on all properties in the NHS due to be replaced, not used for patient care, awaiting planned preventive maintenance and awaiting disposal. They also include an element for meeting statutory and safety standards.

  Backlog maintenance estimates (£000s) by region 1989–90 to 1992–93

  Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Northern

  98,766

  97,109

  138,672

  142,129

  Yorkshire

  122,422

  98,988

  1—

  125,987

  Trent

  119,841

  102,170

  120,375

  119,383

  East Anglia

  67,772

  66,156

  1—

  83,462

  Oxford

  122,566

  81,961

  1—

  89,925

  North West Thames

  75,234

  70,934

  1—

  84,049

  530

  Backlog maintenance estimates (£000s) by region 1989–90 to 1992–93

  Region

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  North East Thames

  257,386

  300,500

  329,303

  331,467

  South East Thames

  141,324

  108,939

  240,789

  264,256

  South West Thames

  196,121

  150,222

  178,099

  176,176

  Wessex

  62,0601

  107,539

  86,088

  111,461

  South Western

  121,008

  112,878

  153,415

  123,605

  West Midlands

  242,276

  280,554

  320,737

  307,229

  Mersey

  80,768

  50,148

  46,553

  64,310

  North Western

  95,048

  104,911

  126,373

  144,011

  1Data incomplete.

  Backlog maintenance estimates (£ 000s) by region 1993–94 to 1995–96.

  Region

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  321,103

  393,068

  369,388

  Trent

  132,983

  129,252

  200,193

  Anglia and Oxford

  243,135

  186,912

  222,923

  North Thames

  503,381

  483,518

  514,398

  South Thames

  378,527

  334,987

  327,671

  South and West

  230,419

  263,322

  243,891

  West Midlands

  382,500

  310,541

  290,490

  North West

  198,950

  222,978

  243,472

  HIV and AIDS
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding has been spent in each region on voluntary sector HIV treatment and prevention work by health authorities in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; [4301]

  (2) what proportion of the AIDS (Control) Act 1982 reports for 1995–96 have been received by his Department; which reports are yet to be received; and of the reports so far received, what funding has been spent on HIV treatment, community care and prevention work in each region on (i) voluntary sector and (ii) statutory bodies by health authorities in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96. [4302]

  Mr. Horam
  The funding spent by health authorities in the statutory and voluntary sectors for HIV treatment and prevention in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 is set out in the table. Information on sums spent by health authorities on community care for both sectors is not available centrally.

  Ninety-six per cent. of the AIDS Control Act reports for 1995–96 have been received to date. Those outstanding are from Camden and Islington, Avon Somerset and Walsall health authorities. The totals in the table for 1995–96 are therefore incomplete.
  531

  Treatment and prevention 1995–961

  Statutory sector expenditure

  Allocation to voluntary sector

  Treatment

  Prevention

  Treatment

  Prevention

  English health regions

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5,676.37

  92.26

  4,527.86

  77.27

  476.21

  7.74

  1,331.93

  22.73

  Trent

  3,006.03

  97.39

  4,241.32

  84.26

  80.56

  2.61

  792.29

  15.74

  Anglia and Oxford

  8,879.03

  96.91

  5,327.20

  93.50

  283.11

  3.09

  370.34

  6.50

  North Thames

  84,397.03

  84.97

  8,912.94

  69.61

  14,928.65

  15.03

  3,891.17

  30.39

  South Thames

  24,226.28

  82.71

  6,035.59

  75.94

  5,064.35

  17.29

  1,912.25

  24.06

  South and West

  4,638.56

  89.85

  4,392.08

  83.43

  524.00

  10.15

  872.31

  16.57

  West Midlands

  2,864.74

  87.39

  3,625.24

  88.29

  413.37

  12.61

  480.82

  11.71

  North West

  9,843.32

  96.86

  4,909.61

  86.50

  319.10

  3.14

  766.24

  13.50

  Grand total

  143,531.37

  86.66

  41,971.85

  80.12

  22,089.35

  13.34

  10,417.35

  19.88

  1 These figures represent reports received to date, and are therefore incomplete.

  Treatment and prevention 1994–95

  Statutory sector expenditure

  Allocation to voluntary sector

  Treatment

  Prevention

  Treatment

  Prevention

  English health regions

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Northern and Yorkshire

  5,988.05

  93.90

  5,026.67

  83.20

  389.00

  6.10

  1,015.00

  16.80

  Trent

  2,083.37

  96.82

  4.183.00

  89.00

  67.53

  3.19

  517.00

  11.00

  Anglia and Oxford

  5,890.50

  95.20

  4,277.32

  91.90

  297.00

  4.80

  377.00

  8.10

  North Thames

  103,181.48

  94.20

  3,111.96

  73.50

  6,353.00

  5.80

  1,122.00

  26.50

  South Thames

  20,918.03

  87.60

  5,387.69

  80.90

  2,961.00

  12.40

  1,272.00

  19.10

  South and West

  6,368.58

  93.10

  6,505.09

  89.00

  472.00

  6.90

  804.00

  11.00

  West Midlands

  3,506.81

  84.10

  5,420.57

  93.00

  663.00

  15.90

  408.00

  7.00

  North West

  6,730.03

  97.10

  5,813.82

  91.30

  201.00

  2.90

  554.00

  8.70

  Grand total

  154,666.86

  93.13

  39,726.11

  86.75

  11,403.53

  6.87

  6,069.00

  13.25

  Treatment and prevention 1993–94

  Statutory sector expenditure

  Allocation to voluntary sector

  Treatment

  Prevention

  Treatment

  Prevention

  English health regions

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,119.11

  92.60

  5,591.52

  89.20

  489.00

  7.40

  677.00

  10.80

  Trent

  2,208.25

  96.80

  4,648.84

  90.50

  73.00

  3.20

  488.00

  9.50

  Anglia and Oxford

  4,545.22

  91.80

  4,246.00

  96.50

  406.00

  8.20

  154.00

  3.50

  North Thames

  73,587.88

  93.40

  6,800.74

  84.80

  5,200.00

  6.60

  1,219.00

  15.20

  South Thames

  19,606.79

  87.90

  5,811.50

  79.30

  2,699.00

  12.10

  1,517.00

  20.70

  South and West

  6,233.65

  93.10

  5,474.84

  89.30

  462.00

  6.90

  656.00

  10.70

  West Midlands

  2,817.50

  92.00

  5,320.97

  93.40

  245.00

  8.00

  376.00

  6.60

  North West

  5,340.55

  93.80

  6,263.38

  89.60

  353.00

  6.20

  727.00

  10.40

  Grand total

  120,458.94

  92.39

  44,157.80

  88.37

  9,927.00

  7.61

  5,814.00

  11.63

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of patients who have contracted(a) MRSA and (b) other infections in hospitals in each of the past five years. [4662]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has made no such estimates. Data on the incidence of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus compiled by the Public Health Laboratory Service from numbers of isolates for which hospitals have requested specialist typing show a total of 2,286 confirmed reports from hospital incidents in 1992, 4,592 in 1993, 10,818 in 1994, 17,063 in 1995 and 21,272 until the end of October 1996. These figures represent the number of patients affected by MRSA, not the number infected, as about 80 per cent. of people who acquire MRSA, carry it harmlessly and do not suffer infection. An incident is three or more patients with the same strain in a month from the same hospital.
  532
  The results of the "Second National Prevalence Survey of Infection in Hospitals," published earlier this year, showed an overall prevalence rate for all types of hospital acquired infection of 9 per cent., compared with 9.2 per cent. in 1980. The survey, undertaken jointly by the Hospital Infection Society, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Infection Control Nurses Association, was conducted between May 1993 and June 1994 and covered 37,000 patients across 23 specialties in 157 hospitals in the United Kingdom and Eire. There have been no published national studies on the incidence of hospital acquired infection, but the incidence rate is generally thought likely to be around half the prevalence rate.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for making MRSA a notifiable condition; and if he will make a statement on the reliability of current statistics on MRSA infection and deaths. [4663]

  Mr. Horam
  MRSA infection can take the form of many different diseases from trivial skin infections to pneumonia or septicaemia. It would be wholly
  533
  impracticable to make all these diseases notifiable. Appropriate measures to control MRSA do not depend on it being notifiable.

  MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics. Consequently, there are no centrally held statistics on deaths from this cause. The Public Health Laboratory Service publishes aggregate data on numbers of cases of certain severe infections, some which are due to MRSA which are voluntarily reported to it by hospitals. It also publishes data derived from isolates of MRSA sent to it for specialist typing. Although these data give helpful indications of trends, it is not possible from either of these data sets to identify the total number of cases of MRSA infection.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the use of antibiotics in(a) the spread of methicillin resistant staphyloccus aureus and meningitis and (b) resistance to anti-malaria drugs and to anti-TB drugs; and if he will make a statement. [4665]

  Mr. Horam
  Bacteria have the ability to develop resistance to antibiotics which are normally effective against them through exposure to these drugs. The emergence of some resistant bacteria such as MRSA is therefore a consequence of the necessity of antibiotic treatment in modern medical practice. Prevention of the spread of existing MRSA is dependent on effective infection control arrangement. In the case of tuberculosis, there is good evidence to relate the emergence of drug resistant tuberculosis to inadequate treatment of initially drug sensitive tuberculosis. In the United Kingdom, standard protocols have been in use for the treatment of tuberculosis for many years and the incidence of drug resistance is very low. New guidance issued this year aims to keep it this way.

  Recently published research conducted in Gloucester into general practitioner antibiotic prescribing and meningitis has produced some interesting observations—including a possible link between meningitis and the high use of one particular type of antibiotic in towns in Gloucestershire in 1987. Such a hypothesis is, however, speculative and the findings need to be tested in other areas. The Public Health Laboratory Service will be asking its meningococcal working group for its recommendations on further work.

  Drug resistance of Plasmodium falciparum malaria to the anti-malarial drug cholroquine has increased in both intensity and geographical distribution over the last few years, and resistance to the newer antimalarial, mefloquine, is now a problem in parts of south-east Asia. These facts have to be borne in mind when considering an appropriate malaria prevention strategy for travel to endemic areas.

  Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the expenditure by each London borough on support for refugees and their families under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 as amended by subsequent legislation. [4669]
  534
  Mr. Burns
  Special grant report No. 22 relating to the persons from abroad children's grant was debated on Wednesday 6 November. First claims for funding will be submitted by 31 December. Officials are in close contact with local authorities with regard to estimates of the cost of supporting childless adult asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) 999 emergencies, (b) general practitioner referred emergencies and (c) self-referred emergencies have been received at Edgware general hospital in each month of 1996. [3514]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 November 1996]: The information requested on attendances at the Edgware hospital accident and emergency department in 1996 is as follows:

  Month

  GP referrals

  Self-referrals

  999 referrals

  Other1

  Total

  January

  655

  1,877

  572

  671

  3,775

  February

  609

  1,795

  447

  649

  3,500

  March

  695

  2,041

  498

  718

  3,952

  April

  614

  2,154

  483

  703

  3,954

  May

  577

  2,180

  530

  802

  4,098

  June

  551

  2,315

  565

  993

  4,424

  July

  610

  2,361

  632

  905

  4,508

  August

  539

  2,144

  562

  694

  3,989

  September

  473

  2,000

  549

  858

  3,880

  October

  465

  2,042

  668

  814

  3,939

  Total

  5,788

  20,909

  5,506

  7,807

  40,010

  1Other—patients who may be referred by a number of other routes including police, schools, employers, dentists, opticians etc.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to NHS dialysis centres in respect of the re-use of blood lines and dialysers; what assessment he has made of the compliance of NHS staff with manufacturers' recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [4913]

  Mr. Horam
  No specific guidance has been issued to national health service dialysis centres on this issue; however, general guidance on the re-use of medical devices supplied for single use was provided to the NHS in a device bulletin, DB 9501, published by the Medical Devices Agency in January 1995. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The Medical Devices Agency has issued general guidance advising users to read the manufacturer's instructions for use before using any device.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds are currently made available to provide patients suffering kidney failure with(a) disconnect systems, (b) EPO drug treatment for anaemia and (c) reimbursement of the additional cost of overnight dialysis for those who work. [4914]
  535
  Mr. Horam
  There is no specific funding for patients suffering kidney failure. Health authorities are given general allocations for hospital and community health services to purchase health care services for their resident population. It is for individual health authorities in consultation with the provider of services to decide the level and type of work of services purchased, taking account of local circumstances and national policies and priorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letter of 9 August from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East concerning care homes in the north-west. [4976]

  Mr. Burns
  A reply was sent on 18 November 1996.

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

Lord Whitty
John Lawrence Whitty, Esquire, having been created Baron Whitty, of Camberwell in the London Borough of Southwark, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton.

Baroness Byford
Dame Hazel Byford, DBE, having been created Baroness Byford, of Rothley in the County of Leicestershire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Pike and the Baroness Miller of Hendon.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Airport Security Staff
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there are adequate checks to discover whether security staff at airports have had connections with criminal or terrorist activities.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, following the passing of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act in 1990, a new and rigorous security programme was put in place in the UK. However, we are continually reviewing methods of improving security, and it was decided in August of this year that all security staff working at UK airports should be subject to formal counter-terrorist checks.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very satisfactory reply. Have the Government had reason to suspect that convicted thieves, or friends of drug traffickers or of terrorists, have infiltrated these security services? Are not safety and reduction of crime more important than any supposed diminution of civil liberty arising from disclosure of police records or past convictions?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, of course my noble friend is quite right that safety of airports, aeroplanes and air transport is of prime importance. He also drew attention to the suspicions of infiltration of sensitive areas by known criminals. The new
1190
arrangements are being brought in as a means of improving aviation security generally and they have not stemmed from any specific incident. The Government remain committed to a long-term process of refining and developing security procedures.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I understand it, amendments are being tabled in connection with the Police Bill to address some of these issues? They will come before the Committee quite shortly. As it appears that the situation in this country has much improved as a result of the changes outlined by the Minister concerned recently, it is extremely important to ensure that, so far as possible, we have a harmonised approach internationally on such matters. If there is any disparity in procedures at major airports throughout the world, we shall be or are likely to be affected in this country. Are the Government taking any initiatives in the International Civil Aviation Organisation or elsewhere?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The Police Bill will bring forward the issue of the criminal records agency. However, that has nothing to do with the counter-terrorist checks that will be made by the Department of Transport. They will involve checks on criminal records and also a security service terrorist database.
The noble Lord also asked whether we were acting on an international basis. Of course, the security of airports is paramount. This country is quite justifiably regarded as taking a lead in the matter. Following the disaster at Lockerbie, Her Majesty's Government pressed the international community, through the ICAO, to adopt an eight-point plan to improve aviation security. That involves items such as baggage-passenger reconciliation, all hold baggage to be screened and also the legislation required for that purpose. We are not complacent and we look forward to reducing the security risks further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, further to that reply, will the Minister indicate what progress has been made following the post-Lockerbie initiative?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that point. We have baggage-passenger reconciliation when boarding aeroplanes. There are plans for all hold baggage to be screened, and a great deal of money and research and development has gone into that. We also have the Transport Security Division, headed by a security professional with direct access to Ministers. In addition, staffing has quadrupled since Lockerbie.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Regional Airports. Can my noble friend say, n the context of his first reply to my

1191
noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, whether security staff at the smaller regional airports will also be put through the same security checks?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my understanding is that that is correct. However, if I am wrong I shall let my noble friend know.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the improvements which he indicated in his first reply will apply to existing security staff as well as to new applicants to the services?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting point. Careful consideration has been given to whether we should make the new arrangements retrospective, but it was decided that they should apply only to new applicants.

Whitehall Buildings
3.5 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to consult Parliament and the wider public about the future of the Crown estate in Whitehall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon explained to the House on 15th October, it is for individual departments to be responsible for the future of their Whitehall buildings. It is therefore for them to inform and consult, as appropriate, about any proposals they may put forward. Those would be subject to the normal planning procedures applying to Crown buildings, including requirements for local publicity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the future of the core Crown estate in Whitehall is rather different from the future of government buildings sold off in Newcastle, Southampton or Croydon and that they should not be treated in exactly the same way? Will the Minister give an undertaking that before further possible privatisation, either by freehold or leasehold, of Crown estate buildings in the Whitehall area proceeds further, this House and the other place should be consulted, preferably in written form?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that where listed buildings are involved there are sensitivities. As I am sure he is aware, all government buildings on Whitehall are listed either as Grade II, Grade II* or Grade I. There are, therefore, procedures to be adhered to which would not apply to unlisted buildings.
As to the second question, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord that the public consultation that takes place on such proposals is exactly the same as it would
1192
be if the Crown were subject to statutory procedures. The procedures that the Crown has elected to go through do not differ in any respect from the statutory procedures. That entails consulting all formal consultees, including English Heritage. In the end, any proposals for government buildings are subject to endorsement by Ministers and Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is to be the future of the Treasury building? Is it proposed to sell it off? Is he aware that the evasive answers given the last time the matter came up have given cause for great concern?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the Treasury announced on 13th September, it has appointed Exchequer Partnership plc to redevelop its headquarters building in Whitehall. Following completion of the necessary clarification process, the Treasury aims to sign heads of terms with Exchequer Partnership shortly. A further announcement will be made then. Any public consultation will, after that point, be a matter for the local planning authority, as I explained.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Earl say when the Government will stop touting around parts of our national heritage like some bucket shop estate agent, especially at a moment when our economy is booming with the unexpected extra tax revenue? Have the Government no shame at all in the matter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will accept that the Government have a duty to maintain their buildings and to occupy them in an efficient manner. Where it is necessary to spend substantial sums of money on a particular building, the Government have a duty to examine and assess those options which seem likely to provide good value for money for the taxpayer. That is all we are talking about here.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how the Treasury's independent action in appointing Exchequer Partnership, or whatever it is called, squares with the work of the new Property Advisers to the Civil Estate who, according to the OPS report, are responsible for promoting best practice in the management of government property and for disposing of inherited vacant property at best value? That in itself is disconcerting and gives rise to concern. Will he explain why, if one has gone to the trouble of disposing of the PSA and appointing these splendid new agencies, it is then found necessary for independent Ministers to make their own independent arrangements?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe I can put my noble friend's mind at rest. PACE, the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, is an executive agency of the Office of Public Service. Its primary role is to co-ordinate activity on the government civil estate where Exchequer savings can be demonstrated. It also has other functions, to some of which my noble friend alluded. But that role is rather

1193
different from the role of a private finance initiative partner. The PFI aims to promote efficiency, improve services and stimulate flows of investment. The private sector will bring to the table its management skills, entrepreneurial flair and capital. By working in partnership with it, we have the opportunity to maximise value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his last answer will give cause for even greater concern in this House? Is he further aware that there is deep suspicion about what the Government are up to in relation to Whitehall? I echo the for once very moderate words of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. These are policies of the madhouse. This is the centre of British government; it has been the centre of British government for some considerable time. And, as I understand it, the Government are attempting to flog off part of it. That is not just pawning the silver; it is selling the dining room as well. Is it not absolutely crazy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord over-eggs his case. We are talking about the possibility of using private money in order to deliver better services at better value for money and making the best use of public assets. I should have thought that the noble Lord would have no quibble with that at all.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Treasury building is sold off, will it be allowed an increased budget to pay for the rent?
Earl Howe: My Lords, clearly, any assessment of private finance must depend not only on the initial value for money assessment and the risk transfer assessment but also on whether the proposal is affordable in the long term. I do not know what arrangements will be reached in the end. That is subject to negotiation. But I can tell the noble Lord that there is no intention of selling the freehold of the Treasury building.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether Horse Guards Road is still closed to traffic, as it was yesterday? If so, how long is it likely to remain shut?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe that that is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister saying that it is the primary duty of departments to make money out of their buildings?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that the Government have a duty to maintain their buildings properly and to occupy them efficiently. That is rather different from the proposition advanced by my noble friend.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, let me press the noble Earl further on his reply as to the accountability to Parliament. Will he say explicitly whether that ministerial accountability for decisions is an accountability to answer questions after decisions have been taken or whether it is an accountability to listen to, and consult, Parliament before decisions are taken?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no government department can touch a brick of its buildings until planning permission has been secured. Once planning permission has been secured, it is for Ministers to answer to Parliament in the normal way.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not want to press the Minister too hard on this matter, but planning permission is granted by the local authority. In other words, whether or not some of Whitehall is sold will depend on the decision of the planning committee of Westminster City Council. Is that the situation that the Government want to get into?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not talking about a sale but about development of a building, which is very different. Proposals for development of a building in Whitehall would be subject, if the Secretary of State at the department so decided, to a planning proposal to Westminster City Council. Westminster City Council would then have to go through all the normal procedures, as though it were a normal planning application; and the rest is as I have explained.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Government would be wise to reassure public opinion that while efficiency and value for money are very desirable, in the ultimate they have to be subordinate to environmental considerations when it comes to crucial elements of the national heritage, such as the buildings in Whitehall?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, with his concern for the national heritage, will be reassured to know that English Heritage has a role to play wherever it is proposed that Whitehall buildings should be developed. Whenever Westminster City Council is consulted about a proposal under the non-statutory procedures, English Heritage is automatically notified and sent a copy of it, and its comments are sent to the local authority who will act upon those comments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that those of us in the Palace of Westminster have an active interest in what happens in the Palace of Whitehall, Dining Room, Banqueting Hall and all? Given the large number of reports in the press

1195
about other projects in the pipeline, can he give the House an assurance that we will be consulted before any further projects are proceeded with?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if there are further proposals which emerge, the processes and procedures that I have described will be adhered to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl says that Westminster City Council has a large role to play in this matter. Given our suspicions of Westminster City Council, will he give the House an undertaking that any application relating to the matters we are discussing will be called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment for public inquiry?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords. If Westminster City Council gives consent to a proposal, it is up to the Secretary of State at the department concerned to take a decision as to whether or not he wishes to proceed. The Secretary of State for the Environment can call in an application if there is disagreement. Then, of course, it could be subject to a local public inquiry, if need be.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I know that this is a matter of great interest to your Lordships and I am sure that we shall come back to it. With your Lordships' permission, I wonder whether we ought to give a fair crack of the whip to the other two Questions.

Water Companies: Charging Methods
3.18 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many of the 28 water companies have produced firm proposals for new charging methods for their customers when they are no longer allowed to use rateable values on 1st April 2000.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Government announced their intention on 4th April 1995 to amend the legislation in order to enable water companies to continue to use rateable values as a basis of charging for water after 31st March in the year 2000. This amendment will be made as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises. Water companies are not, therefore, required to produce firm proposals for new charging methods by that date.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will the matter of appeals and rebates be gone into at the same time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that appeals and rebates are rather different from the question of whether these charging methods can continue after the year 2000.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl say whether the Government will encourage water metering after the year 2000 and, if so, why?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the simple proposition is that 92 per cent. of domestic households pay water rates at the moment based on rateable value and 8 per cent. have meters. The Government favour selective metering. It should be voluntary and needs to be applied sensitively for large families and others with special needs who have a high use. But it is for the water companies to decide.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a result of being metered for the past five or six years, I pay around half the amount for my water than I did when it was rateable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is interesting. I suggest my noble friend applies the same technique to his whisky bottle.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Earl has finished his whisky bottle, can he say whether in any proposals to extend water metering there will be consultation with the Department of Social Security over the possible burden for those on social security benefits?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a matter for the water companies, and they do it at the moment. They decide whether or not they wish to go to metering. Usually what happens is that houses built after 1989 and any new houses are metered; it is only the old houses which are not metered. Of course, the water companies will take into account the position of people in a difficult financial position.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most commodities are sold in accordance with the law of supply and demand? Would it not be reasonable therefore for water companies to charge rather more when there is a drought and less when there has been a lot of rain?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend makes a number of pertinent observations. However, the one he has just made would be enormously controversial. There has been enough difficulty over the past year in ensuring that everyone receives sufficient water. This year, when there really was a drought, everyone seems to have had plenty of water. But nobody is congratulating the water companies on what they have achieved this year; they are simply being lambasted for what everyone thought should happen last year.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the water companies satisfied that they know exactly what is going on in this area?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have not asked each of the 10 water and sewerage companies and the 19 water companies whether or not they are satisfied. But I have no reason to believe that they are not.

ADAS: Privatisation
3.22 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advantages to farming will result from the privatisation of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, after privatisation ADAS will be free to develop and improve its services to all its customers in response to market demand.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I hope that that does not mean that ADAS is not free to develop and improve its services at the present time. Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet in the public about many farming practices? For example, there is enormous disquiet and consequent harm to the industry in relation to BSE. If the Agricultural Development Advisory Service is privatised there will be strong suspicion, especially bearing in mind the money the Government are asking for it, that it will go into the hands of chemical and other companies. They are not necessarily doing bad work—in fact they do good work—but the public need reassurance about many of the practices in farming which in themselves are excellent. That privatisation will cause immense disquiet.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am truly astonished by what the noble Lord says. Many times have I listened to complaints from these Benches relating to the non-independence of MAFF; about how functions and decisions should be removed from MAFF so that the public can have more confidence in them. The noble Lord is now complaining because something is being removed from MAFF, saying that the public will not have confidence in it. The noble Lord should be more consistent.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that when ADAS started charging for its services a few years ago there was considerable anxiety about whether farmers would continue to use the services to the same extent? Can the Minister say whether there has been any reduction in the use of ADAS since charges were introduced? If so, is it not likely that if it is privatised that trend will continue?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, farmers are sensible, commercial people and will pay money for services that they find worth while. Many farmers find the services provided by ADAS to be excellent.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, my question was whether there had been a reduction in the number of people using the service.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have the figures with me. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should declare an interest in this Question as the President of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. Is the Minister aware that the original intention was to require ADAS to achieve 100 per cent. full cost recovery by 1st April 1997 and to offer it for sale during the summer of 1997? The target date was then brought back to 1st April and it is now to be rushed through early in the new year. What is the hurry? Does it relate to the second Starred Question about the future of Whitehall? Is this part of the Government's scorched earth policy to sell off or lease out every public asset they can before the general election?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the procedure is going extremely well and running ahead of schedule. I see nothing wrong with that. Frankly, Pavlov must be pleased that the noble Lord was not one of his dogs. Year after year we have rung the bell for a new privatisation; year after year it has brought home the goods; and here again, faced with a new privatisation, is the noble Lord celebrating? No; he is dry-mouthed. Pavlov would not understand it and nor do I.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I find that to be an extremely insulting answer. Will the Minister answer my question? I did not ask about the merits of the sale; I asked about the timetable.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I had hoped I had answered that in my initial sentence; that is to say, procedure and ADAS are running so well that the procedure is running ahead of schedule.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that an organisation such as ADAS is only as good as the quality of its internal leadership and key personnel? Can the noble Earl give any indication that many of the excellent individuals in ADAS are willing to transfer to the new system? That would be a great comfort to many people in the agricultural industry.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. The management and consultants of ADAS are very much in favour of privatisation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise not to ask the noble Earl a question but merely to put a point forward that he might wish to consider. In the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Carter, with great respect to him he went a bit too far. He went over the top. In my limited experience in this House it is not in accordance with the traditions of this House to launch such a personal attack, even if clothed in a mocking tone of voice. He would do well to consider apologising to my noble friend.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has taken what I said in that spirit, of course I apologise unreservedly. I was merely expressing myself in what I hoped was a bit

1199
of fun and if I misjudged it I am sorry. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out and for promoting me to an Earldom, which I do not deserve.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer was neither funny nor satisfactory? In fact, inside ADAS there is considerable dissatisfaction and fear of the change. Furthermore, the amount of advice given to farmers has gone down. Perhaps the noble Lord did not know that but suspected it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, fears have been expressed before many privatisations. I remember the anxieties over rail privatisation. If one asked anybody who comes from my part of the world near Winchester what they thought of rail privatisation now, they would say it is the best thing that has happened to the railways that they can remember. When ADAS is privatised, I am sure that farmers will feel similarly about that privatisation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expressed concern about the possibility that an organisation like a chemical company may take over ADAS. When the Government are tendering for people to buy ADAS, will they be prepared to consider management buy-outs as well as offers from other companies?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, very much so. The noble Baroness is quite right; a management buy-out would be an excellent idea. Indeed, the management informed us at an earlier stage that it would be interested in mounting a management buy-out.
As we have a minute left, perhaps I may say what are the principal objectives that we have set ourselves. First, we want to transfer the functions of ADAS and associated risk to the private sector on the best available terms; that is, terms which optimise the risk-adjusted net benefit. Secondly, we want to ensure that services provided to MAFF and the Welsh Office from the private sector can be delivered continuously, economically, efficiently and effectively. Thirdly, we wish to provide a clean break from the Government and minimise contingent liabilities. With that set of criteria, a takeover of ADAS by a chemical company which would threaten the future of its independent research is likely to be heavily discounted.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that every act of privatisation by this Government has proved to be successful? Alas, the Opposition Benches have always been opposed to privatisation, which has increased the economic viability of this country.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Courtown 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 fire in the Channel Tunnel.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for new arrangements in relation to the provision within the National Health Service of medical, dental, ophthalmic, pharmaceutical and other services; to make provision about medical lists and vacancies and the sale of medical practices; to make provision about the expenditure of health authorities; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Winston: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to remove the need for written consent to provision or use of gametes in certain circumstances. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Winston.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for a right of dignity at work for employees; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

1201
The Bill brings about a fundamental change in the benefit recovery process. Its central objective is to allow victims of accident, injury or disease to retain their compensation for pain and suffering. At the same time we will ensure that public funds do not subsidise the negligence of others. We anticipate that our reforms will save the taxpayer £50 million a year.
The compensation recovery scheme is not, I have to admit, a well known part of the social security system, although the principle behind it is plain. A person who suffers an accident, injury or disease may receive compensation from a third party for the loss he has sustained. He may also receive social security benefits following the same incident. Those benefits may replace lost income or contribute to the cost of care or mobility. That means that the victim could receive two payments to meet the same need. Benefit recovery prevents that by recouping benefits paid from public funds.
This policy is founded on the principle that an individual should not receive double provision to meet the same need. Although this long-standing common law principle pre-dates the modern welfare state, Sir William Beveridge articulated it clearly in his historic report Social Insurance and Allied Services, published in 1942. I quote:
"An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the remedy proves in fact to be available he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone."
Before the Government introduced the current scheme in 1990, compensation recovery was an inconsistent business. Compensation was reduced to recover benefits already paid, but the amount deducted differed from benefit to benefit. For some benefits, 50 per cent. was deductible. For others, the full amount paid was brought to account. Recovery of some benefits could reduce compensation up to five years from the date of the incident. For other benefits, there was no time limit. This inconsistent approach disadvantaged some accident victims. Furthermore, the compensator retained any deduction that he made on account of benefits paid. So although double compensation of victims was prevented, the taxpayer lost out and the negligent party was subsidised.
In a report produced in 1986 the National Audit Office concluded that it was wrong for public funds to be used to subsidise negligence. It recommended that the amounts deducted from compensation should be recovered for the taxpayer. Subsequently, the Public Accounts Committee urged the Government to set up such a scheme. The Government commissioned a review of the relationship between compensation and benefit payments. Following the review, they decided to act. The current compensation recovery scheme was introduced as part of the Social Security Act 1989.
The current scheme certainly delivers value for money. In the last financial year the compensation recovery unit recovered benefit in 45,000 cases—an average of £4,000 in each. A total of almost £140 million was recovered—more than £2 million of
1202
taxpayers' money recovered each week. With operating costs of only £3 million, the taxpayer is getting a very good deal. The Bill will deliver an even better one.
The Social Security Select Committee has played a part in focusing attention on the current scheme, and on ways by which it might be improved. At the beginning of 1995, the Select Committee decided to,
"inquire into the policy and practice of the compensation recovery unit, and the legislation on which it is based".
It took evidence from the department, and from a range of other interested parties, and reported in July 1995. In its unanimous report the Select Committee reached conclusions about the scheme that are of crucial importance. It concluded that,
"it was right for the Government to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the pre-1990 scheme".
It added that,
"the taxpayer should not be in the business of paying benefit for compensating individuals who have suffered injury or disease for which the courts would hold someone else responsible".
The Government welcome those conclusions. They provide confirmation that the Government were right to introduce a scheme which has the protection of the taxpayer at its heart.
I turn to an aspect of the current scheme to which the Select Committee drew particular attention. It is that the recoupment process can sometimes result in erosion of compensation for pain and suffering. The Bill will put that right. Under the current scheme, compensation is reduced by the amount of benefits paid following the accident regardless of what the compensation is for. It follows that in cases where the benefit paid is more than the compensation payable for reasons other than pain and suffering, erosion of this element may occur.
Under the reformed scheme, the parties will negotiate a settlement on the basis that compensation for pain and suffering is to be paid in full. This will apply regardless of the benefits which the compensator is to repay to the department. In this way, we will protect elements of compensation which have no direct parallels within the benefit system. A key advantage of the arrangement we propose is that it will not complicate negotiations in out-of-court settlements. We will not be placing a bureaucratic requirement on the compensator to specify the elements of compensation that are payable in each individual case. To do so would disturb the negotiating process and increase the risk of litigation since most cases agree a global settlement figure which does not identify component parts. Where the case is subject to the judgment of a court, the deductions from compensation that are to be made will be specified by the court.
I turn to another important feature of our proposals. The Select Committee recommended that the Government should recover all benefits whenever compensation is paid. Small claims that are settled at or below £2,500 are not currently recovered. The purpose of the limit is to remove the need for compensators and the department to process cases where the amount of benefit paid as a consequence of the accident is limited or non-existent. To recover all benefits would mean removing the small payments limit.

1203
In the course of preparing for the Bill independent consultants discovered that a disproportionate number of compensation settlements have been pitched at or around the small payments limit. They suggest that many victims have settled for compensation at less than true value. Furthermore, insurers and compensators have gained while the taxpayer lost through unrecovered benefits. We cannot allow this situation to continue. We have therefore decided to remove the small payments limit as part of our reforms. We are retaining the power to set a limit should this be needed in the future. Removal of the small payments limit would plainly involve an increase in the number of cases processed by the compensation recovery unit and by insurers. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that all benefits are recovered and the taxpayer is fully protected.
That brings me to the cost of our proposals. We recognise that this area of the department's work is a specialised one. For that reason we commissioned independent consultants to produce a compliance cost assessment. Fifteen major insurers were closely involved, and I would like to place on record our gratitude for their support and for the valuable assistance they provided. The compliance cost assessment estimated that insurers would face increased claims costing between £52 million and £72 million in each year following reform. The anticipated cost to insurers of implementing the new arrangements will be marginal. The cost of operating them is likely to be between £3 million and £7 million a year.
These increases in costs need to be viewed against a background of markets in which insurance premiums exceed £8 billion each year. If passed on to policyholders, the increase in costs is likely to produce only moderate increases in premium rates. The assessment concluded that employers' liability insurance premia could rise by around 5 per cent. and public liability premia by around 3 per cent. Motor insurance premia are expected to rise by no more than half of 1 per cent. We believe a rise in premia of this order will be seen as acceptable given the protection the Bill offers to victims, and to the taxpayer.
In developing our proposals we have listened carefully to the views of interested parties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State mounted two consultation exercises before coming forward with our proposals. He consulted on the implications of reform along the lines proposed by the Select Committee and on the findings contained in the compliance costs assessment. The organisations consulted adopted a very constructive approach in responding to the issues raised. Both exercises revealed a broad measure of support for reform of the scheme. We have therefore decided to act. Reform of the scheme will take effect from October next year. It will affect all claims not determined before implementation and those arising subsequently. This means that the additional costs identified in the compliance cost assessment will accrue immediately rather than build up gradually over a period of years.
The Government do not impose burdens on business lightly. But it is important to consider the implications if the new arrangements were confined to claims arising
1204
after the point of change. For years we would face the situation where two accident victims, having sustained comparable injuries and losses, could receive markedly different compensation payments purely on the basis of the point at which their claim had been lodged. That would be rightly perceived as unfair. It is why we propose that the new scheme should benefit cases still in the pipeline at implementation as well as those arising afterwards.
The compensator will be liable to pay all recoverable benefits whether or not the contract of insurance was taken out before the point of change. To avoid any doubt, it may be necessary for us to put down amendments to ensure that the new liability applies in all such cases. In proposing these arrangements we have given careful thought to ways in which the burden on the insurance industry may be minimised. We have concluded that giving insurers a full year's notice of reform is the right approach. I know that some commentators would like to see the new arrangements implemented as quickly as possible. I suspect that during the passage of the Bill the Government will receive strong representations on the point, in particular from those who feel that the progress of claims that could benefit from the new rules will become stultified in the period before implementation.
I do not dismiss those concerns. However, I am convinced that in some cases a behavioural response by the parties to negotiations is inevitable in advance of implementation. The parties to negotiations will invariably take account of the proximity of reform when reaching a decision on whether or not to settle. In many cases both parties will reach the conclusion that reform will have no effect on the size of the settlement, and that there is nothing to be gained by slowing or .suspending negotiations. In some others, the knowledge that a delay in settlement will lead to an increase in the amount of recoverable benefit may lead to an improved offer being made and accepted in the period before implementation. Inevitably, there will be some claims which are delayed until the autumn of next year, but I believe that that is a price worth paying to secure a substantial improvement in the current arrangements.
I would like to mention another measure contained in the Bill. We plan to streamline the present appeal system for benefit recovery decisions, which is complex and has led to difficulties. I should make it plain that we have no intention of diminishing the rights to appeal which exist in this area; in fact, our reforms should make the process more intelligible and therefore more accessible. Our plans have the support of the independent tribunal service.
The change in the scheme that we are making is a relatively straightforward one but the Bill may appear long and somewhat complicated. Perhaps I can explain why. Rather than make piecemeal amendments to the existing statute, the parliamentary draftsman has restated the relevant part of the Social Security Administration Act in its entirety. This will make it easier for your Lordships to see the proposed new scheme in the round without constantly having to refer back to a previous Act. Furthermore, if enacted in this form, it should prove easier for practitioners to absorb the changes we are

1205
making. It should also help the scheme to run smoothly in the years following reform. Naturally, the Bill contains the necessary amendments to effect what is an important shift in responsibility for the repayment of benefit. But, as far as is possible, we have thought it right to disturb as little of the detail of the present scheme as possible. I believe that there is a widespread consensus that it works well, and we do not want to put that at risk.
I would like to mention in particular Clause 31 of the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State to make consequential and transitional provisions. The broad intention of Clause 31 is to enable compensation claims determined but not paid before the point of change to be dealt with under the current scheme but, in addition, to apply new rules to such cases where it is administratively sensible to do so. One example is the simplified appeals process. It would be logical to apply that process to all compensation claims outstanding at the point of change.
I look forward to debating the Bill. I am confident that we will agree that in all its essentials it is beneficial and worthwhile in every way. I may find it rather unusual to present a Bill which, I suspect, is going to meet with a good deal of support from all parts of the House. It will achieve three important objectives. First and foremost, it will protect compensation for pain and suffering from the benefit recovery process. Secondly, it will deliver full protection for the taxpayer. Thirdly, it will be fair to the compensator who will be empowered to reduce the settlement where a corresponding benefit is repaid to the department. As such, I believe that our proposals are fair to the victim, to the taxpayer and to business. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was not sure that I would ever be saying from these Benches that regard a social security Bill as a good one, but I do so. I say unambiguously that we welcome it. It is a good Bill because it will make a real difference to the lives of many injured people while at the same time benefiting the position of the taxpayer, as the Minister has explained. In this House and in the other place, we shall seek to help the Government in speeding this Bill through.
Four per cent. of the working population in the past year had an accident. Therefore, this Bill could potentially affect one in 25 of us. As the Minister says, the Bill seems technical but it is highly important. It rectifies a deep injustice of the 1989 Act because that Act clawed back benefits, for example, paid out for loss of earnings, not just against that element of compensation which was for loss of earnings, but also recovered it against damages for pain and suffering. That often meant that whether or not the victim went to court for damages ultimately made no difference to the money received.
1206
Perhaps I may cite just a couple of cases that were quoted in the fourth report last year of the Select Committee on Social Security. Some of the harshest cases involve asbestosis sufferers. The Select Committee was told by Clydeside Action on Asbestos, to which I am sure we would all like to pay tribute, that where there was a difficulty in establishing liability and where someone had been on benefit for a long time, an individual sufferer might be awarded £30,000 in compensation, every penny of which was clawed back for lost benefit by the compensation recovery unit. Another man, who suffered a severe back injury in an industrial accident, told the Select Committee:
"I have recently been offered £25,000 as full and final payment for my injuries, only to be informed by my solicitors that I owe the CRU £21,000 and after paying solicitors and medical bills, I will probably be left with nothing".
That is intolerable.
Rightly, the Bill proposes to ringfence general damages for pain and suffering from benefit recovery. The going rate for suffering is not particularly generous. It is £5,000 for a whiplash injury; only £20,000 for the loss of an eye; £40,000 for the loss of an arm or a leg; and £50,000 for sterility. One thinks by contrast of the damages awarded in some libel cases. However, we are pleased that at least that element of compensation will remain with the victim and we are delighted that the Government saw fit to respond to the fourth report of the Select Committee on Social Security, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the TUC and the Law Society, all of which have worked with the Government to make the Bill feasible.
The original Act was passed in 1989. It is clear that 1988 and 1989 were bad years for social security legislation. It is striking that today we are debating two such measures. One is the Child Support Agency. The Government introduced the CSA to push the cost of child maintenance from the taxpayer to the father. At the same time they introduced CRU, the compensation recovery unit, to push the cost of supporting the victim from the taxpayer on to the insurer. Both measures were designed to save the taxpayer money. Both have had precisely the opposite effect. Because the Government were so grasping, the taxpayer has ended up worse off. Measures from the Child Support Agency, which we shall be debating later, were made retrospective, with no benefit disregard for mothers, and originally with no appeal procedures for fathers. As a result, there has been so little compliance that when the administration costs are removed, the CSA is revealed to have collected little more than the original liable relative scheme. Had the Government worked with families instead of merely seeking to claw back benefit from them, the taxpayer would have been better off.
The same is true of compensation recovery. Because the scheme was designed to recover money for the taxpayer rather than for the victim—just like the CSA, which sought money for the taxpayer rather than for the mother and child—it was often not in the interest of the victim to go to court and to pursue the claim against the insurer. Therefore, because the Government were grasping, the taxpayer ended up with nothing at all. All organisations, including the Labour Party, the insurers

1207
and the Confederation of British Industry, warned the Government at the time that that 1989 Act was not only unfair but ineffective, but the Government would not listen. As the Minister rightly said, the consequence has been that the victims have too often settled for the tiny ringfenced sum of £2,500 even when their injuries would have entitled them to claim much more. They did so because they knew that any sums won by going to court were likely to be rechurned back to the Government. So why bother? Why take the risk? Why face the strain? As a result, the insurers of defaulting companies were let off the hook and did not pay what they should; the Government got little or nothing and the taxpayer got absolutely nothing at all. It was a mistake. Given that the Government transferred all the risk and the cost to the victim while, through compensation recovery, taking all the benefit to themselves, it is not surprising that victims opted out and that the taxpayer lost out.
We are delighted that this Bill is an opportunity to rectify that situation and to act fairly to victims and sensibly towards the taxpayer. How many people stand to gain? As I understand it, there are about 2 million accidents a year leading to about 300,000 claims and 100,000 court proceedings, of which about 90 per cent. are successful. Most are for industrial or motoring injuries. Some involve public liability, such as when somebody slips in a restaurant and breaks a leg. The average length of time that it takes to settle a case is about two-and-a-half years, although one in 10 takes longer than six years. Someone with a minor injury, such as a whiplash injury from a motor accident, may be back at work within a month or two and will not be dependent on benefit. However, if the accident generates a chronic disabling condition, the victim may not be able to return to work and will instead depend on benefit. That is why there is benefit recovery in 30 to 40 per cent. of cases. As the Minister said, at the moment the CRU claws back about £140 million.
As I have tried to suggest, the problem with the 1989 Act was that there was an inbuilt incentive not to sue, but to settle too cheaply, and that let the taxpayer take the strain of the benefit bill. As the Minister rightly said, we hope that these proposals will bring about greater equity for the victim and the taxpayer alike. Having said that, I hope that the Minister will be able to help us on the following issues. He addressed one or two of our concerns in his opening remarks, but in terms of thinking of amendments it would help us to know the Government's views on some other points.
First, we welcome Clause 2 which provides full retrospectivity for cases currently under discussion. However, Clause 31 relates to Clause 2 and may allow that clause to be disregarded. Under what circumstances may the provisions of Clause 2 be set aside by the Government?
Secondly, how do the Government propose to deal with the difficult question of contributory negligence and litigation risk? Will there be a proportional recovery of benefits for proportional contributory negligence? The Minister seemed to suggest—I may have misheard him; I hope that I did—that the victim will not get a
1208
breakdown of heads of damages from the compensator. If that is the case, I ask the Minister seriously to think again because it is important that the claimant has full information on that point.
Thirdly, the Minister referred to the small payments limit and suggested—I do not disagree—that the figure of £2,500 is no longer relevant and that it serves to depress claims, letting defaulting companies off the hook. Nonetheless, as the Minister also accepted, there is a case for a de minimis in order to get rid of small claims which cost more and clog up the system. Do the Government have a de minimis figure of, say, £500 in mind? What is the Government's thinking on that? A small payments limit would surely be sensible.
What happens when loss of earnings is awarded in court for only two years out of the four years that someone is away from work due to injury but the DSS seeks to recover benefit for all four years? What happens when a medical advisory tribunal is at odds with a court on that issue? I should be grateful if the Minister could write to me to give me a steer on such issues.
What about the continuing problem of interim payments? A case was cited to the Select Committee on Social Security involving an operation to a damaged knee. There was a very long NHS waiting list, so the victim suggested that he should have treatment privately so that he could get back to work quickly. He therefore sought £3,500 to pay for that, plus modest loss of earnings. He received an interim payment of £5,000 and the DSS clawed back £2,000 or £3,000-worth of benefits. As a result, the man was not left with enough money to pay for the operation; he did not have that operation and remains out of work and on benefit. Can we have a steer from the Government about what they propose to do over the issue of interim payments, particularly in such circumstances?
We are also worried about the number of exclusions and exemptions under Part I of Schedule 1. Too many conditions appear to be excluded, such as fatal accidents and criminal injuries. Will the Government assure the House that they will be open to consensual amendment on that point?
I turn now to a wider issue. I realise that because this Bill deals with recovery it cannot address all of the injustices and difficulties inherent in compensation for personal injuries through the courts. For example, there may continue to be problems where the state of medical knowledge develops beyond the date of settlement and therefore the victim is left in an unfair situation through no one's fault. I have in mind medical knowledge associated with organophosphates. Those problems are much more serious than might have been anticipated when the original settlement was made. Obviously this Bill cannot address that problem, but it remains an injustice.
An injustice also remains where a victim is unable to identify a defendant against whom to sue for damages. Whether a defendant exists or not and whether or not compensation can be achieved over and beyond benefit recovery are very often random matters.

1209
There is also a particular DSS concern, which the Minister will recognise, about the interlocking of this Bill with the capital rules for means tested benefits. Although under this Bill an individual will have his damages for suffering ringfenced from recovery for benefits already paid out by the DSS—clearly and unambiguously we welcome that—if he subsequently finds himself on non-means tested benefit such as incapacity benefit, damages for suffering will continue to be ringfenced and retained by him as an award for his pain. But is it not the case that a victim who does not receive incapacity benefit because he achieves only 11 or 12 and not 15 points, and who while disabled is not sufficiently disabled to get incapacity benefit, will find himself on means tested JSA but his damages for suffering will no longer be ringfenced but will be used under the capital rules to reduce the benefits that he would otherwise have received? Will they not be eaten away unless either he spends them quickly or puts them into a trust?
I do not ask the Government in this Bill to open up the question of capital rules for means tested benefits. That would have far-reaching implications, financial and otherwise. But I believe it is right to recognise that, as the Government move from non-means tested contributory benefit to means tested benefit, as they have with JSA, it creates new injustices in its trail. We may be seeing one such in this Bill today.
I conclude by saying that we greatly welcome this Bill. We hope that as a result victims will properly retain those damages due to pain and suffering, thus rightfully relieving those unquantifiable burdens of distress and hardship that fall upon them and their families. We hope that the taxpayer will recover from the compensator the benefits paid out to the victim in full because there will no longer be any temptation for the victim to avoid a court case and settle for £2,500, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the benefits bill. We also hope that the Bill will encourage insurers to settle speedily, rather than drag out cases, knowing that they face benefit recoupment. Further, we hope that insurers, who I suspect will have to pass on higher premiums to companies, will now be pressing those organisations to improve their health and safety practices and secure a better working environment; and that at least on this measure the Government will be on the side of the good employer and on the side of the victim. We welcome that.
4.3 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it falls to me to complete the hat trick and join in the general welcome around this Chamber for the Bill. I welcome the principles on which it is based and the intention behind it. I even welcome a large part of the drafting. I am glad to see it and wish it a fair wind. I will do the best I can to assist it to reach the statute book.
I slightly regret that in introducing a Bill which puts right an injustice caused by Section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989 the Minister nevertheless feels the need to defend the 1989 principle which he seeks to reverse. In 1989 a number of noble Lords were involved in the issue: the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who was in charge of the Bill and who taught me how, with
1210
much courtesy and skill, bad legislation could be managed; the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway; the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, whose speech I look forward to hearing in a few minutes; the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths. In particular, I remember the incandescent anger of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, at discovering that damages for pain and suffering were to be clawed back by the DSS in order to recoup benefit. We were assured many times that it was absolutely impossible to distinguish between damages for loss of earnings and damages for pain and suffering. I am delighted that the Government now understand that this is not the case.
The Minister is entitled to congratulate himself on having listened, before preparing the Bill, to all interested parties. The department has done so with great care and to good purpose. One recognises that this is one of those cases in which the costs must fall somewhere. One is dealing with the costs of benefit paid to those who have suffered illness or injury for which someone else is subsequently found liable. Those damages may fall in one of three places: on the taxpayer, the victim or the compensator. If we consider it as a matter of equity, it should be clear that the victim is the least suitable place on which the damages should fall. It is probable that the victim will have the least resources and is least to blame for the fact that the damages have arisen. When one considers the question as between the taxpayer and the compensator, clearly the compensator is, like Belloc's George, in part to blame. Therefore, there is an equitable case for saying that the compensator ought to pay. In both cases—the compensator or the taxpayer—the costs will spread out with a ripple effect. The ripple will spread either to the taxpayer if it is the DSS or the insurance payer if it is the compensator. It means that in one way or another you and I end up paying. I am still not absolutely persuaded that insurance premiums rather than taxes are the fairest way to proceed but that is not a point of great importance. I do not intend now to make an issue of it.
I am interested in improving a few small points in the Bill. Even though they are somewhat technical, I mention them now in the hope that it will save time later. I was extremely interested to hear from the noble Baroness about the person who did not quite qualify for incapacity benefit but nevertheless was not fit for regular work. I shall listen to what she says on that point later in the Bill. I do not immediately see the appropriate remedy but I shall be happy to discuss it.
In Clause 3 I wonder about the different treatment of illness and injury. Obviously, there is a very grey area as between the two. I am reminded of my father's first diplomatic assignment during which he argued at great length with the French about whether or not a lobster was a fish. I can imagine a similar argument taking place about whether radiation sickness is an illness or

1211
an injury. It may be of great profit to lawyers, but it makes me wonder whether the distinction between the two treatments is really justifiable. I should like to back up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about mesothelioma. That is a matter to which we shall have to pay further attention.
Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the certificate of compensation recovery and the situation where there is an error in the original certificate. The Bill provides that in that case the Minister may issue a fresh certificate. I believe that that is too permissive drafting and that in that clause and perhaps also in Clause 10 "shall" is rather more appropriate than "may".
In Clause 16 there is a fearsome-sounding Henry VIII provision that modifies the Bill in any case in which a payment into court is made. I believe I understand why the Government word it as they have done. There are a number of reasons, one of which is a sub judice case which will impede our debating of the principles involved. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister can give me a clear exposition of why he thinks the Henry VIII power is needed. I hope too that he can define its purposes slightly more tightly than is achieved in the Bill. I shall listen to his answers with interest before considering any next steps.
The Bill contains an extremely open-ended commencement clause. The measure may be brought into effect at practically any time whatever. I accept the point made by Sir William Wade, in a memorandum to the first report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, that these entirely open-ended commencement clauses may be risky. I was pleased to hear what the Minister had to say about October next, but I would be even more pleased if he could put into the clause a terminus ante quem because I want to see the Bill come into effect.
Clause 10 deals with supplying misleading information so that a new compensation recovery certificate is needed. That deals only with the compensator, but of course the insurer may be the one supplying the information. A wider-embracing clause might be useful. In Schedule 1 paragraph 8 there is a reference to "any prescribed payment" as something which may be excluded. I should like to know what the Minister has in mind. Again, I shall consider the further situation after listening to his answer.
The small payments limit we shall obviously have to discuss a great deal. The retaining of the power while abolishing the limit argues a certain hesitation in the mind of the Government. As we go through the Bill I should like, if I may, to probe what is behind that hesitation and again listen to the answers and make up my mind as to what I think when I have heard them.
I am on the whole happy with what the Minister said about treatment of cases in the pipeline, but again that is something we shall have to discuss further. I hope to be helpful in raising points upon which I believe agreement may very well be reached. I do not wish to delay the Bill. I wish the Bill a fair wind.

Channel Tunnel: Fire
4.13 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an answer to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on the fire in the Channel Tunnel. The Statement is as follows:
"At approximately 8.45 p.m. GMT yesterday, a fire broke out in a lorry on board a Eurotunnel freight shuttle inside the Channel Tunnel between Calais and Folkestone. The shuttle was carrying 29 heavy goods vehicles with 31 drivers and companions plus three crew members. The shuttle, on its way from France, had a French driver and crew. It stopped 12 miles through its journey on the French side of the tunnel.
"Emergency services, fire-fighters and ambulances, arrived at the scene within 20 minutes, and helped evacuate everyone on board the shuttle. Twenty-eight were taken back to France by a tourist shuttle travelling in the untouched northern tunnel; six were evacuated by the service tunnel transport system. Eight people were taken to hospital; two were detained, including the driver of the shuttle. Their condition is reported to be serious but not life threatening. I understand that they will be discharged today.
"French and British fire brigades worked through the night to bring the fire under control. The emergency is now over. I am sure that the House will want to join me in congratulating the emergency services on the way they coped with this incident and in expressing relief that there were no fatalities.
"The French authorities have already begun a formal inquiry. This is for them since the incident happened in the French part of the tunnel. Eurotunnel's own investigation is under way. In addition, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which is comprised of representatives from this country and France, will be making its own inquiry into the incident and studying the reports from the operators and the French authorities. The safety authority's findings will be made public. I shall be urging my French counterpart, M. Pons, to ensure that the French authorities publish their findings as soon as they properly can, so that the lessons of this incident can be learnt by all concerned.
"Until the investigations have been completed, it would be wrong of me to speculate on the causes of the fire. I can assure the House, however, that representatives of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority are on site and will not allow either passenger or freight operations to recommence until Eurotunnel can prove that this can be done safely".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the answer given by the Secretary of State in another place. I associate these Benches with the tribute that he has paid to the courage

1213
and efficiency of the emergency services (British and French) whose work undoubtedly mitigated the situation and avoided an even worse occurrence. I also express our sympathy to those who suffered injury in this accident.
Perhaps I may now ask the noble Earl some questions which, hopefully, will be pursued in the various inquiries which are to take place. Before I do that, I express the hope that there will be considerable co-operation so far as concerns the inquiries to avoid unnecessary duplication. Can the noble Earl indicate when the first warning of fire was given, by whom, and to whom? Can he ensure that the shuttle design which was approved before the service began to operate will be looked at afresh, the paramount concern being the safety of the passengers even above the cost to the operator?
Will the noble Earl confirm that the normal procedure to be followed in the event of fire is for the train to continue on its route, if possible, into the open air since it is easier to deal with an incident if that is done? Will he also confirm that if the train does have to stop the part of the train which is on fire can be uncoupled and the part with the passengers on board able to proceed on its way? Presumably the inquiry will focus upon why the train stopped when it did. Can the Minister confirm that if the passengers have to be evacuated they should be directed to the walkway and into the service tunnel, because that is a separately ventilated area? Again, presumably the inquiry will focus upon why that was not done in this case.
Were the emergency fans, which are capable of blowing air in either direction in the tunnel to ensure that smoke is blown away from the passenger car before the passengers are evacuated, switched on? Again, will the inquiries look into that matter?
The House will be gratified that the noble Earl said that the reports following the inquiries to be carried on in the UK will be published, and that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the French also publish the results of their inquiry. Will the evidence as well as the conclusions be published? I am sure that all of the inquiries will be very full and that confidence, which is extremely important, will be re-established at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for the Statement that he has just made, and express our sympathy for those involved in this incident. I, too, should like to express my appreciation of the admirable way in which the French and British emergency services coped with the emergency.
We are pleased to know that, in general, the safety measures and practices designed into the Channel Tunnel and its operating regime worked as planned. We can also be thankful that at this stage there would appear to be no very serious injuries among those involved. However, a number of points need to be answered. I understand that there was a significant delay in the summoning of the Kent Fire Brigade, and that that amounted to about an hour after the French were
1214
informed. Will the Minister confirm whether that is true? Do extra precautions need to be taken with regard to the carriage of hazardous cargoes on vehicles using the tunnel? Furthermore, should the lorry shuttle vehicles be redesigned on a basis similar to those used for car shuttles, which are totally enclosed and fire resistant? Such vehicles would have minimised the possibility of the fire breaking out and contamination of the tunnel. They would also have enabled the shuttle vehicles to be withdrawn by a locomotive rather than stopping where they did.
Can the Minister say whether, as regards such an incident, there will be any read across to the ferries, in which vehicles are more closely packed? I can imagine that a more disastrous situation would have arisen as there would have been more passengers. Finally, what action has been taken about the growing concerns over the level of security checks on passenger trains on either side of the tunnel?
We welcome the fact that the results of the inquiry and, we hope, the evidence are to be published and made public.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I too join in the praise of the rescue services and extend my sympathy to those injured in the incident last night. The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Methuen, raised several issues which, I am sure they realise, are totally the concern of the inquiry. When the results are made public we shall be able to learn from the incident. It occurred on French soil and it is for the French authorities to decide whether to hold a public inquiry. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is urging his French counterpart, M. Pons, to ensure that the French authorities publish their findings as soon as they properly can in order that lessons can be learnt by all concerned.
The freight shuttle was mentioned by both noble Lords. It was approved by the safety authority and the inter-governmental commission. Obviously, the inquiry will look at that again and the safety authority will doubtless revisit the issue. I shall ensure that the concerns expressed by both noble Lords are brought to the attention of those carrying out the investigations.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, at this stage, are the Government satisfied that the fire was wholly accidental in origin or is there even now a possibility that there was sabotage of some kind?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, it would be foolish of me to speculate on that matter. My noble friend will be aware that those details will be considered by the French authorities and no doubt by Eurotunnel and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without hint of speculation as to the cause of the fire or criticism of anyone, can my noble friend confirm that there were two engines on the train—one at the front and one at the back—each with one driver, and that there was one

1215
guard? Can he also confirm whether, if the drill of uncoupling had been implemented, the train could have been driven back to France within nine to 10 minutes? Furthermore, is my noble friend able to say whether the train was about 200 metres away from the service tunnel whose air pressure kept it free from smoke and which could have been reached from the train?
I too wish to express sympathy for the injured and admiration for the courage and expertise of the fire-fighters.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend has made a number of points concerning the options available in what could have been a serious incident and was for those injured. Of course, various options are available and the crew must make a judgment at the time. The points about ventilation and so forth are matters for the inquiry.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as security and passenger services have been mentioned, I wish to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the system of passenger checking at the Paris end of the service—which I use once a week—is most haphazard. Can it not be co-ordinated at both ends? For example, on passing through the security check at the Gare du Nord, one passes an officer of the law who will decide by looking at you whether you are the kind of person whose baggage should be more closely inspected. However, at this end of the tunnel one goes through a proper security check. As a good European, I have not objected when on several occasions I have been selected for special investigation of my baggage, but I believe that there should be some co-ordination and similarity of treatment at both ends.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point concerning security. At Question Time today I answered a Question relating to aviation and we touched on areas relating to railways. Our checking is among the finest in the world. Indeed, representatives of other countries come here in order to ascertain how to improve their own security. Of course, I shall make the noble Lord's queries available to my right honourable friend.

Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
4.27 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, it falls to me to try to pick up the threads of the Bill relating to compensation and recovery. We have had broad agreement on the Government's proposals from all sides of the House. Noble Lords may be relieved to hear that the broad thrust of the proposals is fully agreed by the insurance industry. Perhaps I should add that I have been briefed by the Association of British Insurers.
1216
The need to protect awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity is also fully agreed by the industry. The additional cost of the Bill to the industry, which is put by the Government at some £50 million and by the industry at between £51 million and £71 million, is accepted. Of course, some increase in the premiums is to be expected.
I wish to discuss two points of contention. First, Clause 2 makes the Bill retrospective. That damages insurers, who cannot charge extra premium for those claims which are currently in the pipeline; that is, between the occurrence and the award. Many precedents exist for a law becoming effective in respect of events occurring after legislation, the latest of which was the Damages Act 1996. That was amended by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor after representation. On behalf of insurers, I wish to ask the Government to reconsider our proposal here and to do the same. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that it does not follow that after today a new claim will have a shorter life in the pipeline than will an old claim currently going through and awaiting an award.
The second point that I should like to raise is more complex. The changes in the Bill not only ringfence the agreed compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, but also take powers and apparently intend to abolish the small payments limit. It is the industry's contention that not only is the latter unnecessary in order to achieve the Bill's aim but that, rather than assisting the Government to claw back more money, it may actually add overall cost to all parties, including the Government.
Here I believe I should add some more details to explain why the industry takes that view. Although the Government commissioned a compliance cost assessment, its terms of reference were to look at each of the issues separately. If it had had terms of reference which included the need to look at the assessment of the overall result, it might have come to some different conclusions. For a start, the terms of reference did not address the impact of ringfencing those cases of pain and suffering which are currently settled below the £2,500 small claims limit but which will now be paid. The difficulty that arises from that now needs to be reviewed. We believe that the cost of doing so will actually damage the Government's financial recovery. For example—and this has happened since the discussions which the Government had with the industry—there has been a recent sample survey of past claims by a major employers' liability insurer. Looking at past claims, it found that, had they included the present ringfencing for all claims for pain and suffering, including claims under the £2,500 limit, the initial clawback that the Government could have achieved would have been 90 per cent. of all the additional clawback which they currently expect.
There is also the point that claims that are currently settled for the limit of £2,500 may well be suspect as to the actual injury or illness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, suggested that many claims are being settled too cheaply. However, the insurance industry suggests that some are settled too expensively because it is not worth the cost of sitting down to argue

1217
the case. If we remove the small claims limit, review in many cases would be inevitable. There is also the point that a number of claims under £2,500 consist of statutory sick pay only where no clawback exists.
Therefore, we have a situation where the compliance cost assessment has already stated that the removal of the small claims limit will add a 50 per cent. increase to the workload of the Compensation Recovery Unit and another 60 per cent. to its costs. We suggest that it will also add to the insurers' costs, as they will then become involved in some of the reviews. Finally, where those findings of below £2,500 are reviewed and then disputed, that will also add to court time and costs.
In our view, the better solution is to ringfence only for pain and suffering and to retain the existing small payments limit. We believe that that will add very little extra administration to the Compensation Recovery Unit; it will avoid extra court costs; and it will also leave insurers with less administration. But, most importantly, it is the pain and suffering ringfencing which will significantly enhance claimant recovery. As the Bill provides only for powers to be taken to remove the limit, insurers ask the Government to seek extra evidence of its effect before considering any implementation. Finally, they ask the Government to reconsider Clause 2 and to amend it in the way recently agreed under the Damages Bill.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill, as has my noble friend from this Front Bench and, indeed, other speakers in the debate. I remember very well the discussions that we had in your Lordships' House when debating the Social Security Act 1989. At the time it seemed to me, and to a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House, that it was quite iniquitous to claw back from compensation, which had been awarded because injuries had occurred through negligence—often the employer in the case of industrial injury—the amount paid by way of social benefits.
The Government's argument then was that unless the entire amount of social benefits was recovered people would get double compensation. In fact, as we said then, the benefit being paid was one which had already been paid for via national insurance contributions—in the case of industrial injury back benefit—or by way of taxation. Moreover, it was a no-fault system. Damages paid at common law, however, were paid only if there had been negligence, if the injury had occurred through the fault of another person.
We said that if the Government persisted—as, indeed, they did—situations would arise where an injured person would end up with nothing at all, for if the case took some time to settle, the amount deducted from common law damages would be so much as to nullify the award, even though that award had arisen because negligence had been proven as the cause of the injuries. Indeed, as we have heard, that actually happened. My noble friend Lady Hollis has already cited a number of cases and I also have details of some cases sent to me by the Trades Union Congress. I shall give your
1218
Lordships an example. One individual had been exposed to ammonia gas and was unable to work for the last 22 months before his retirement. His case was settled for £13,000, but his benefit claim of £129 a week began to eat into the claim. Eventually the benefit income caught up with the value of his claim and all the damages were paid to the DSS. That may be rather an extreme case, but it is clear from the information supplied by the TUC that compensation has been cut dramatically in many cases, so that individuals who had quite serious injuries have not received lump sum compensation anywhere near compensating them for the pain, suffering and continuing disability that they may suffer.
It is true, as we have heard, that the 1989 legislation made provision for a threshold. Reclamation of benefits was possible only in legal cases settled above £2,500. But this itself has had a negative effect, and the Minister referred to it as the reason why the threshold does not appear in the present Bill. There is an incentive to settle at a lower rate than the claim may be worth in order to avoid reclamation. Indeed, as we heard, insurance companies often offer payments at the £2,500 level, with the rider that if the settlement is higher, reclamation will erode its value.
On the other hand, the Bill makes provision for a threshold of some sort to be introduced some time in the future. If there is to be a threshold, I believe that we should look most carefully at the £2,500. As I understand it, the view of the TUC is that the figure was set in 1989 and is now rather out of date. It ought to be higher if we are to have a threshold figure at all.
However, as I said earlier, I am disposed to give a welcome to the Bill before the House. At last it is acknowledged that pain and suffering is an element for which there must be compensation and that a common law settlement should not be eroded in regard to any part of it meant to compensate for this. I can well recall that in 1989 we strongly argued that an injured individual was at least entitled to be compensated for the pain and suffering involved in the injury. I am extremely glad that the Government have now seen the strength of that argument.
There is another aspect that I believe to be important and it is one that I am not sure is covered in the Bill. I am talking about prospective loss of earnings arising from an injury. I can well understand, without necessarily supporting entirely, the view that social benefits will already have compensated to some degree for loss of earnings already sustained. But possible future loss, which is not always quantifiable, arising from disability contingent upon the accident is a rather different matter. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider it.
One of the problems about common law claims for industrial injury is that, generally speaking, the awards tend to be too low. Here I disagree with the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, who gave the views of the ABI. Perhaps this is not the place to raise the matter, but I understand that the TUC is already taking it up in connection with other possible legislation. When I was a union official involved with

1219
industrial injury cases, I can well recall that every so often there would be a case with a very large amount of compensation. Of course we made a lot of fuss about it because we were very proud that we had managed to achieve a very high settlement for an injured member. But very often the injuries in such cases tend to be quite horrific; for example, in some cases the individual concerned would not be able to work again. The general level of compensation payments for industrial injuries tend, I believe, to be rather on the low side. The low level of award means that, in general, accident victims could hardly be regarded as being over-compensated, even if no deductions were made for social benefits. Indeed, before we had the 1989 Act, judges had to take into account the amount paid for social security benefits when awarding lump sum compensation. Of course if an individual has private accident insurance, the benefits deriving from that are not considered when assessing common law damages for negligence.
When we discuss the Bill in Committee we shall be able, as my noble friend Lady Hollis has said, to explore a number of possible improvements. As I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, has confirmed this afternoon, it is possible that insurance premiums will increase as additional amounts will now fall to be paid by employers and their insurers. However, that may assist in keeping down the number of industrial accidents, and if that is so, that would be another benefit. Moreover, I remind the Government that when insurance premiums rise they also benefit because they impose insurance premium tax on the industry at the rate of 2.5 per cent., and there will be a corresponding increase to the taxpayer from such revenues.
I am grateful for the explanation that the Minister has given this afternoon on the appeals procedure. I am glad that there is to be an appeals procedure set out in the legislation. Generally speaking, I welcome the new Bill. I hope that we shall soon get it on to the statute book and that during the course of discussion in Committee we shall be able to advance some arguments which could improve it still further for individuals who suffer accidents at work.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I indicated at the beginning, I thought I was going to be in the unusual situation of introducing a Bill which received a wide welcome throughout the House. At the end of the debate I find that welcome even more surprising. I am particularly glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in the Chamber. We have taken part in a number of debates together and I am pleased that the events of the summer have not prevented her from taking part in these proceedings. I look forward to hearing her contribution in the Committee because I know that she has considerable knowledge of these matters gained in her previous career in the trade union movement. The noble Baroness referred to damages for future loss of earnings. They, of course, will be paid in full. The recovery of benefit takes place only up to the point of settlement. The benefit is recovered only between the incident and the point of settlement. Any
1220
money thereafter is not recovered in the way that the noble Baroness mentioned. I hope that I have reassured her on that point.
Some of the points made in the debate are much more suited to the Committee stage of the Bill, as your Lordships will appreciate. If I do not refer to them all, it is because I anticipate we shall discuss them in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the taxpayer had lost out in respect of the current scheme which we introduced in the 1989 Act. Before the 1989 Act the taxpayer did not receive anything at all. Last year the taxpayer received £140 million, and since the Act came into force he has received something like £500 million. That suggests the taxpayer has got at least something out of the 1989 Act which he or she would not have received before. However, as I mentioned, we think that a further sum of about £50 million will also reach the taxpayer as a result of the Bill before us.
The noble Baroness also asked about interim payments. We would seek to recover the benefits paid up to the point of the interim payment. That means that when an interim payment is being discussed or decided the court or the parties have to take account of the fact that recovery will be sought up to that point. I believe the noble Baroness gave an example of a person who needed £3,000 for an operation. Consideration would have to be given to the £3,000 for the operation, plus the benefit recovery up to that point.
I was also asked about contributory negligence and what effect that might have on benefit recovery. We have no plans to take into account contributory negligence. That is a complex issue and we shall no doubt return to it in Committee. We believe that as the Bill is constructed at the moment it will not be a relevant factor in the recovery of benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lord Chelmsford referred to the small payments limit. We are willing to consider a de minimis small payments limit in future if a good case can be made for one. That is why we have retained the power to set one. However, as I say, we shall have to be persuaded that we ought to introduce some small payments limit to replace the figure of £2,500. I would say to my noble friend Lord Chelmsford that I do not think the ABI has provided any convincing evidence that the compliance cost assessment estimates are likely to prove incorrect as regards revenue because the document addressed the issues of ringfencing and the removal of the small payments limit. It has given the best estimate available for the loss to the industry looking at the whole package and not just at the various parts of it. However, we may return to that matter later. Because of the removal of the small payments limit the Compensation Recovery Unit costs are likely to increase by only £2 million per annum. If one considers the savings I have already mentioned that we believe will accrue to the taxpayer of £50 million from the new scheme, that seems to me to be a reasonable leverage as regards the interests of the taxpayer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, asked me about Clause 31 and its interaction with Clause 2. I said in my opening speech—the noble Baroness can

1221
check this later in Hansard—that the broad intention of Clause 31 is to enable compensation claims determined but not paid before the point of change to be dealt with under the current scheme but in addition to apply new rules to such cases where it is administratively sensible to do so. We may well return to that point in Committee.
The noble Baroness asked me, as regards income related benefits, what happens to a lump sum which is paid in compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of future earnings. She asked whether these amounts of money would be treated as capital and added to any other capital the injured party may have when it is decided whether the individual qualifies for income related benefits. The situation will not change. These amounts of money have always been taken into consideration as regards income related benefits. Compensation awarded for any personal injury, either by the courts or in an out-of-court settlement, can always be placed in a trust for the injured person. The trust can either be set up by the victim or by someone acting on his or her behalf. Placing the payment on trust enables long-term provision to be made for the disabled person's future without the capital affecting his or her benefit. The way round the capital rules is to set up a trust. That is the current position and it will remain the position after this Bill becomes an Act.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me why the word "may" is used in Clauses 4 and 10 rather than "shall". As I recall from my time in another place, that is one of those questions that occupied committees for many happy hours. Every time "may" was included, Members of another place suggested including "shall" and asked the Government why "may" was used. Every time "shall" was included, they suggested including "may" and asked the Government why "shall" was used. I believe the noble Earl was making a rather more serious point than I am suggesting is often made in such discussions. I am willing to consider the point he has made. No doubt we shall return to it, or we will return to it in Committee.
The noble Earl also asked me—as I expected he would—about any Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. Although I have had the interesting experience this afternoon of discovering that everyone agreed with me as regards the merits of this Bill, I am not being left totally bemused by that in that the noble Earl is chivvying me about Henry VIII clauses. The Bill contains some provisions which would allow modification of the effect of the Bill by secondary legislation, and we have reported that to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I look forward to reading what it says.
The powers not just under Clause 16 but under Clauses 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 31 allow for modification of an Act of Parliament by secondary legislation. They will be used for only very limited purposes which will be to make special provision for particular
1222
circumstances covered by those clauses. Nevertheless, it is possible that regulations under those clauses may not be able to make sufficient provision for those circumstances without making technical changes to the Bill. I have no doubt that we shall discuss those matters when we have the benefit of the advice of the scrutiny committee.
On the same theme, the noble Earl asked me about the commencement clause and suggested that it is open-ended which might mean that the Bill could wither on the vine. As I said, it is our intention, subject to parliamentary approval, that the Bill should be commenced in October 1997. I see no good reason for delay beyond that point once the Bill is passed. I hope that that assurance from the Dispatch Box helps to persuade the noble Earl that I have no underhand intentions with regard to not delaying the Bill after this House and the other place have passed it.
My noble friend Lord Chelmsford asked me about the provisions in Clause 2 and the retrospective nature of that clause. He asked me to reconsider the matter. I explained in opening that we sought to catch cases in existence as well as new cases at the time of change. If we did not do that, people with similar injuries and similar compensation could walk away from the claims with quite different levels of benefit because of the workings of the two provisions. For that reason, I suggest that we should take the unusual step of making the changes retrospective so that they will catch existing cases going through the pipeline as well as new cases. Therefore, while I understand my noble friend's concern, I hope that he will accept that it is perhaps the only way in which to prevent serious unfairness occurring in the years after October 1987.
It is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken agree with us that we should reform the compensation recovery scheme. The reasons that I gave in my initial speech are the reasons referred to in every contribution that has been made. The first is that in the present scheme, compensation payable for pain and suffering can be eroded, which means that the victim can lose out. All noble Lords agree with me that that is wrong. Secondly, manipulation of the present scheme is taking place around the £2,500 limit which means that the taxpayer is losing out. Therefore, I believe that the case is strong and your Lordships have agreed that the new system will be fairer to the victim; it will enable compensation for pain and suffering to be paid in full; and it will be fairer to the taxpayer by recovering all social security benefits in the cases where compensation is payable. I believe also that it will be fair to business, allowing compensation to be reduced where a corresponding benefit has been paid. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and look forward to the Committee Stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Support Departure Direction and Consequential Amendments Regulations 1996
4.53 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations pave the way for the full introduction of the new departures system. They follow regulations made earlier this year that enabled the provisions to be piloted in a small number of areas. Departures will allow for the maintenance assessment made under the child support formula to be varied in a small number of exceptional cases where that assessment is not seen to produce a fair result. This new system will benefit both absent parents and parents with care.
The central element of the 1991 Child Support Act was that child support would be assessed under a fixed formula. This would ensure that parents in similar circumstances would receive similar assessments, and avoid the problems of the old system, where awards were inconsistent, often of low amounts and where maintenance was all too frequently given a low priority.
The formula does, of course, contain a number of safeguards to ensure that absent parents are not required to pay unreasonably high levels of maintenance. The protected income provisions ensure that he will always retain more income after payment of maintenance than if he were in receipt of income support. A further provision, introduced in April 1995, ensures that maintenance is capped at 30 per cent. of net income.
But we recognise that in exceptional cases the inflexibility of these provisions can cause difficulties. The departures system will for the first time introduce an element of discretion. It will enable the formula assessment to be varied to allow greater recognition of expenses and commitments not covered by that formula.
Since we have only a short time to debate these regulations, I shall not discuss each one in detail. However, I hope it will be helpful if I outline the main provisions. There are three categories under which a parent can make an application for a departure. The first is for special expenses relating to: high travel-to-work costs; high travel costs in maintaining contact with the children of the assessment; costs arising from illness or disability; debts incurred while the family were still together; financial commitments entered into before April 1993; and the costs of supporting stepchildren, where responsibility was taken before April 1993.
The second category is where a property or capital settlement in lieu of child maintenance and made before April 1993 is not properly reflected in formula.
The third category is for additional cases including: assets capable of producing income; diversion of income; and lifestyle inconsistent with income declared for the child support assessment. This category is open to either parent but is likely to be particularly helpful to parents with care. One of the criticisms of the child
1224
support formula is that it has not been able to deal as flexibly as the courts with cases where absent parents seek to conceal or divert large parts of their income in order to reduce their child support liability.
The regulations we are debating today carry forward the provisions in the Departure Direction Anticipatory Application Regulations, introduced in April, and which enabled the departure provisions to be piloted. The pilot has been of enormous value to the Child Support Agency in the testing of procedures prior to the full introduction of the departures system. It highlighted a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include operational procedures; the computer system; and letters and forms sent to parents. Appropriate amendments have now been made and this will be of great help when the system is introduced fully, helping to ensure that the procedures work smoothly and efficiently and that parents receive a good standard of service.
During the pilot, some 2,000 cases were considered. Of these we believe that around 10 to 15 per cent. are likely to be successful. We have always been keen to ensure that the departure system is seen to benefit parents with care and not be just for absent parents looking to reduce their maintenance liability. It is therefore pleasing that there was an almost even split of applications between parents with care and absent parents. No evidence has emerged to suggest that the provisions in the pilot regulations do not deal appropriately with exceptional cases. These regulations, therefore, carry forward those provisions. But we will, as always, continue to keep both the overall child support scheme and the departures system under close review.
In addition to setting out the basis for departure applications, the regulations also contain a number of provisions relating to the handling of applications. These include provisions for cases with existing assessments and provisions for appeals.
One issue the regulations do not cover is the order in which the Child Support Agency will take on cases. Clearly it will be impractical for it to deal with all cases, both new and those with existing assessments, from day one. I can confirm that the agency will take on new cases—that is, where an assessment is made on or after 2nd December—as they arise. It will also take on first those cases which took part in the pilot exercise. So those who took part in the pilot exercise will have their cases considered immediately.
Other cases with an existing assessment will be taken on in phases. First will be those cases where the youngest child is aged 15 or over, since liability for maintenance may well cease soon. Then cases will be dealt with according to the age of the assessment, with the oldest cases being dealt with first.
All cases with an existing assessment will be sent a notification about the new system and invited to make an application if they wish. We will be aiming for this exercise to be completed by April 1997. However, if applications are high this may be extended to September 1997.
No parents will lose out as a result of this phased take-on. The regulations ensure that those with an existing assessment who make their departure application by 1st December 1997 will have any departure award backdated to 2nd December 1996, provided the conditions for the departure were met at that date.
The final aspect of the regulations which I shall mention briefly is the provision for appeals. As with assessments made under the formula, there will be a right of appeal to an independent child support appeal tribunal against departure decisions. In addition, some cases may be referred by the Child Support Agency to a child support appeal tribunal for a decision. It is intended that these will be cases which raise novel or contentious issues, and will include cases where the application is made on the grounds of a lifestyle inconsistent with declared income or diversion of income.
One area where the appeal provisions for departures differ from other child support appeals is the provision for tribunal chairmen to sit alone to deal with certain appeals. This will be cases where the appeal is against a decision to reject an application at the preliminary sift stage; and cases involving property and capital transfers. However, it will still be open to chairmen to decide that the case should be dealt with by a full tribunal.
These regulations will allow for the full implementation of the departures system. This is an important reform of the child support provisions which builds on a range of other measures already brought in. The formula assessment remains the right and fair way of assessing maintenance in the majority of cases. But an element of discretion will now enable the small number of exceptional cases to be dealt with more appropriately. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on these Benches have always supported the principle that although a husband and a wife may divorce they cannot divorce their children. He—and it is usually "he"—must retain a continuing responsibility for maintenance. We also believe that the old court system which determined each case on its merits was not particularly meritorious. Barely a quarter of lone parents received maintenance, too few men contributed, their contributions were too low and there was little sustained effort to chase up defaulters.
However, replacing that with a formula established by regulation and operated by agency has, as we have seen, substituted one set of problems for the original set of problems. It has undoubtedly been unfair to many partners; it has been harsh to many absent parents. It has proved unreliable for many parents with care. It should never have been made retrospective, disturbing the settlements on which people had built their financial lives. It should have allowed parents with care to keep
1226
a modest element of the maintenance before it was clawed back by the Treasury. It is analogous to the decision which we discussed earlier today under the Bill relating to the Compensation Recovery Unit.
All those issues were identified during the passage of the Bill. They were all subject to amendments moved by the Opposition Benches. They were all rebuffed by the Government and in all cases the Government were wrong. In so far as they have not adopted them, they remain wrong. How much hardship and pain would have been avoided, how much administrative chaos would have been made unnecessary if the Government had only listened to us and taken the Bill forward in a non-provocative way. In all the subsequent amendments and changes to the regulations that have been brought by the Government since the CSA was first established, one amendment apart—the increased benefit penalty for refusing to divulge information—they were all pressed by this side and the Government originally resisted but they have now belatedly had to concede it.
Departures are very much a case in point. We argued in this House and the other place time and again that the assessment system must include, as the Minister said today, some element of discretion, some element of flexibility, if the formula is to be fair as well as universal. Time and again, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, refused. Usually, but not invariably, the words he uttered were: "floodgates, floodgates, floodgates". It was as though by repeating the word he somehow made it true.
Then, early last summer, we had the Child Support Bill, which embodied some of our concerns, and some of the affirmative regulations today flow from it. As the Minister said, it was based on a pilot scheme of 25,000 cases. It seems surprising that so few—only 6 per cent.—applied for formal review. I understand that the Australian experience is rather nearer 12 per cent. although it is possible that when the exercise is for real and real money may result from it the response rate may be higher. As in Australia, apparently the pilot scheme suggests that almost equal numbers of women and men apply for review. However again, unlike the Australian scheme, the pilot scheme has thrown up only a low proportion of success, from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. I do not know whether the Minister has any views as to why that should be so.
The Minister helpfully explained the direction of the departures. In the first cluster to which he referred, special expenses relating to travel to work, the cost of stepchildren and disability are obviously sensible. We also recognise and welcome the belated acceptance by the Government that property settlements were unfairly treated in the original CSA formula.
However, we have worries and it would be helpful if the Minister could say more about the Government's thinking on them. They concern the third set of regulations, numbers 23 to 29, which reflect the problem where there is an obvious disparity between the declared income of the absent parent and his actual lifestyle. There is the stereotypical case of the man in the pale grey Jaguar declaring that he is self-employed and

1227
unable to make anything other than the most modest contributions. We believe that he is shielding his income from fair maintenance payments.
Our worry is that the regulations as phrased require the parent with care to prove that the absent father is capable of making higher maintenance payments. As the citizens advice bureaux have said, it is a difficult burden to place on the parent with care. Are the Government satisfied that it is an acceptable way forward? What is the parent with care supposed to do? Produce a private detective?
That leads me to ask to what degree the Government are willing to countenance the Child Support Agency interfacing and liaising with other benefit agencies in regard to records. In particular, given that the fraud Bill is currently going through the other place, are the Government considering—and I do not say whether or not we support it—that there should be any interface with Inland Revenue records, which might be one of the ways of tracking down the real income of fathers or absent parents who fail to disclose it to the CSA? What do the Government have in mind on the issue as they start the fraud Bill in another place?
What worries me throughout is that the Child Support Agency does not take the responsibility that it should for ensuring that maintenance is paid. While the Government are harsh on women who fail to divulge the required information by ratcheting up the benefit penalties they now employ, it seems that yet again, men who evade full disclosure of information may get away with it.
While we welcome the Government's belated recognition that discretion, flexibility, departures and appeals must be embedded in the system, and while we believe that most departures listed are to be welcomed, we have a real fear as to the satisfactory nature of the methods that may be employed in order to persuade the absent parent to give full disclosure of the income on which fair and reliable maintenance may be based. That alone may float the parent with care and her children off poverty.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must congratulate the Minister on having been here long enough to have acquired an element of discretion. But the element of discretion is, I feel, still rather a small one. This morning I received advice on the regulations from the Law Society. It says that there is no real discretion as was in the past exercised by the court having regard to the circumstances of individuals. I could not have put it better myself. That sums up the heart of my objections.
I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had to say about the courts. I recommend to her a work that I know she knows and respects as I do; namely, the 20-country study by Professor Jonathan Bradshaw and others. The study pointed out that in all the countries dealt with, the amount that single parents were getting from maintenance was rather small, simply because in many cases the money was not there to be had. So there is a possibility that the trouble we have run into with
1228
the Act is that the expectations of the DSS as to how much it could get in the first place were a little unrealistic.
The noble Baroness also raised the interesting question of why the take-up is so much higher for a pilot scheme in Australia than it is here. There is a perfectly rational reason for that. It is because the Australian scheme is arranged on fundamentally different principles. The point of the Australian scheme is to encourage the parties concerned to agree between themselves on a private settlement. They know the circumstances in a way that the DSS and the CSA never will. The fact that that system might work rather better than the one we have only goes to show that very often people are the best judges of their own joint interests, even in the highly charged circumstances of a broken marriage.
The 6 per cent. take-up is disappointing. In the course of correspondence I have tried to encourage people to take part in pilot schemes. Of the 6 per cent., 90 per cent. were for inconsistent lifestyle and 90 per cent. of those were unsuccessful.
I feel that we all still have a problem on inconsistent lifestyle. Obviously, it is something which happens. There is a case in my papers of someone who, before the Act, was paying £340 a month maintenance and is now self-employed, says he has no income, and is paying nothing. I cannot believe that that is right. On the other hand, it is equally true that inconsistent lifestyle in the supercharged atmosphere of a broken marriage is sometimes alleged when it is not true. We must do better at trying to prove the facts. I believe that we are all united in wishing to do so and that all of us are united in seeing very real, practical difficulties that we have not yet overcome. I once wrote to an irate correspondent who was alleging inconsistent lifestyle, "Don't shoot Mr. Lilley; he's doing his best". The Minister knows that I do not say that very often. So if, by consultation, we can find better ways of proceeding—I am interested in the noble Baroness's suggestion about the Inland Revenue—I should like to see what we can do.
I am reminded of an observation that Miss Chant made, in reply to the ombudsman, to the effect that much of the CSA's problem is that it encounters people at a stage of their lives when they are in an adversarial situation and when an administrative procedure is not the right way to tackle their problems.
Granted that so many of the appeals concerned inconsistent lifestyle, there were not very many under the other grounds. Of them all, in Mr. Mitchell's figures, 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. were successful. That is in line with what the Minister said when he introduced the Act in 1995; namely, that the system had been designed so that it was expected that very few departures would be awarded. Precisely. That is our objection. The Minister said that the regulations dealt appropriately with the situation. They have dealt with it in the way the Minister believes to be appropriate, not in the way we on these Benches believe to be appropriate.
I believe that the departures given are in many cases not large enough. According to the pilot evaluation, the average departure is £25, which means that the average

1229
benefit to an absent parent—there is no figure given for the parent with care in the evaluation, though I wish there were—is £10. With the case, on which I have dwelt in the past, of somebody trying to afford a season ticket from Newbury or Eastleigh in order to remain in work, £10 will not take him very far along that journey. If this is to be an effective system, it will have to recognise rather larger departures.
The rules for capital transfer also suffer from the fact that they require people to have records showing the proportion of a transfer coming under different headings which were not required when the transfer was made. Therefore the records are unlikely to have been made. The department will perhaps be prepared to look at that matter under its monitoring process.
There is a problem with contact. We do not know how much contact will be allowed—if the Minister has anything to say on the subject, I shall be interested to hear it—and we do not know how contact will be monitored. The point has been made and, in relation to boarding schools in particular it is clearly true, that a contact is not always known to the parent with care. I do not think that we should go too deeply into the question of whether that should or should not be so. It is not a problem into which we should stick our noses.
The Minister knows my views on cars. I regret that he did not choose to apply the Inland Revenue rules for car use, which allow for a percentage of repairs, road fund licence and insurance. Those are perfectly workable rules. If, regrettably, people need to go to work by car and if they are to continue to work, they ought to be able to have such rules. Of course, if they cannot continue to work, they will not be paying maintenance, so the object of the exercise will be defeated.
In Regulation 15(1) disability costs are listed. I should like to know—this is a technical question to which I hope it is possible to give an answer—whether those costs are a total enumeration of the disability costs allowed or whether they are covered (I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will forgive my Latin) under the eiusdem generis rule. For example, for someone whose speech is very severely impaired, would or would not the use of an interpreter be an allowable cost under that regulation? I am sure there are many more such examples which might be eiusdem generis, and I hope that they might be allowed.
In Regulation 9 it is a matter of very great regret to me that no departures are allowed in favour of anybody who is on income support. The Minister knows my views about levying maintenance from people on income support. But it should be an object of policy to encourage people on income support to take work, even if that work is only part time and even if only for a very few hours. By not allowing the expenses arising from any such work, the regulation creates another poverty trap. We have too many already, and creating another is a move in the wrong direction.
I am also rather distressed by Regulation 18(2) which states that no allowance shall be made for the costs of stepchildren if those stepchildren were acquired after 5th April 1993. I could predict in my sleep the
1230
Minister's reply: the costs of the stepchildren should fall on their natural parents. But by now the Minister ought equally to be able to predict in his sleep what my reply to that will be. What is to happen if the natural parent of the stepchildren is dead, is out of the country, has gone away and got lost or is physically or mentally incapable of earning money? How then are those children to be maintained? That seems to me a real injustice. I cannot understand how the Minister can justify it. I hope to hear an answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may try to answer the various points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl in our short debate on these regulations. In relation to the pilot scheme, it is true that the number of applications returned was 8.5 per cent. That was pretty evenly divided: in fact 53 per cent. of the total in favour of the parent with care and 47 per cent. in favour of the absent parent. That is a pretty even division on those numbers.
Our projection of about 10 to 15 per cent. of departure awards being successful is based, as the noble Baroness suggested it might be, on the fact that when the system is running for real and there is real money at stake more people may apply. Even those who do apply may apply more seriously when they think that there is real money involved. That is why we made the estimate we did. We believe that there will probably be a slightly higher take-up than there appeared to be in the pilot.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister think that there are any other reasons for the low take-up? In other words, did the pilot suggest that there is an opacity in the system or a complexity of forms which deters, debars or gives rise to fears about confidential information? What did the Minister learn from the pilot which could ensure that when it is more widespread it will encourage people who have a justified reason for believing that they have an inappropriate settlement on which to appeal or to seek a departure from?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we looked carefully at the cases returned and how they responded. As I said in my opening remarks, we have made certain changes to try to make the process as simple as possible.
We believe that the departure will be used only in a minority of cases. In the great majority of cases the formula with the protections in it will work perfectly well. I should have thought therefore that 10 to 15 per cent. is not a significantly small number when it comes to looking at the number of successful applicants for the departures. Of course, we have kept our eye carefully on the way in which people have responded and have tried to ensure that, if there are problems in the way the system has been devised, we can iron them out before we go to live running.
I hope that is helpful. We will continue to watch the situation. If we receive any feedback to suggest that the forms are too complicated or whatever, we shall do our best to make them as simple as we can. That is not always the easiest task in the Department of Social

1231
Security. Given the complexity of issues and the vast range of human conditions, forms are not always the best way to try to encapsulate the condition. But it is the best system we have.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl raised a point in relation to inconsistent lifestyle. All the documents—the written and verbal statements—from the applicant (the parent with care in this case) will constitute evidence for the purpose of the departures. The agency accepts that it is unlikely that the applicants will be able to provide conclusive documentary and written evidence to prove their case. Provided the applicant presents a prima facie case that a departure direction may be appropriate, the application will be referred to the independent tribunal service for determination. The legally qualified chairman of the tribunal will be able to question the parties and may direct any party to produce further particulars or documents. The absent parent may be directed to produce documents in order to establish what the real position is. That will enable the chairman of the tribunal to penetrate the outward appearances in order to establish the true realities of the parties' circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. When he says that the chairman of the tribunal may require the absent parent to produce documents, what sort of documents will they include? To put it another way, what documents will the tribunal chairman not be able to require to be produced; for example, tax returns?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure about tax returns to the Inland Revenue. I shall come to the Inland Revenue point in a moment. I do not want to fetter the independent tribunal chairman in what he should ask for; otherwise your Lordships may say that he was no longer independent. Perhaps I may look into the specific point about income tax returns in a moment.
The tribunal will weigh the evidence and reach a balanced judgment. The Child Support Agency will be able, via the Secretary of State, to draw on information which is in the possession of the department elsewhere in the system; for example, from benefit applications. It can do that under the existing powers in the Child Support Act.
We have no plans at this stage to interface directly with the Inland Revenue. It is a little different from the absent parent actually producing his tax returns, but we have no plans to allow the Child Support Agency to gain access to Inland Revenue information. When we discussed this matter during the passage of the Child Support Bill, it was agreed that the information which an absent parent or anyone else provides to the Inland Revenue should remain confidential. We would be moving a long way away from the normal procedures of the Inland Revenue if we were to go down that road, though I fully understand that it would perhaps provide information which the tribunal chairman may find useful.
1232
The noble Earl returned to a number of points I have heard him make before; for example, on the travel-to-work costs and whether or not the applicant should be able to offset all the costs of his motor car against his maintenance—hire purchase, MOT and garage bills—whereas only the fuel costs will be considered. That is indeed the position. There will be no allowance for those other costs—tax disc, MOT, certificate of insurance and so forth. We do not accept that somebody uses a car solely for working purposes and therefore that all the running costs should be laid against the support of the child.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I believe he has misunderstood the Inland Revenue rules. The Inland Revenue rules do not say that all the costs of the car should be attributed to work. A mileage percentage has to be justified to the Inland Revenue and anything paid is in proportion to that mileage percentage. I do not see what is wrong with that procedure.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl and I will not agree on this issue. We believe that when it comes to the costs of travel to work which are to be set against maintenance, the fuel-cost-only way is the fair way.
I was about to say that the still-married couple looking after their own children are not able to offset the costs of going to work. The taxpayer does not pick up the tab for their car costs, and we must take account of those who are not divorced and are not absent parents or a parent with care. They have to deal with many of those problems within their income and look after their children within their income.
I believe that we have gone a long way in allowing travel-to-work costs based on fuel only. The still-married couple will not receive such preferential treatment against the taxpayer or anybody else when it comes to the costs that they have to carry in getting the husband or wife to and from their place of work. We must be fair to everybody in the country and not look at absent parents in isolation as people who ought to be treated in a special way and to an extent be relieved of the obligation of looking at their income in the round when it comes to looking after the interests of their children, absent or present. That is the point I should like to make about the travel-to-work issue.
On the question the noble Earl raised in relation to the average reduction for absent parents, which is around £10, he said that there are no figures for the parent with care. Indeed, there is no figure for the parent with care because the majority of those cases which arise from lifestyle-inconsistent cases will be decided by the independent tribunal service. It was very difficult for us to run a pilot on that side of the equation, whereas we could run the pilot on the other side over which we have control.
The noble Earl asked about contact costs and he has done so before. The contact costs will be calculated on the actual costs incurred by the absent parent. The frequency of contact is not a matter for the Child Support Agency; it is for a combination of the parents

1233
themselves or indeed of the courts if the parents cannot agree. The noble Earl also asked about stepchildren and why the provisions apply to pre-1993 families only. Where financial responsibility for supporting stepchildren was taken on before the agency existed, it is reasonable to make allowances for the costs involved. Anyone taking on a step-family after 1992 did so in the full knowledge that the child support scheme would make no concessions for the additional costs. The departure system does nothing to alter that position. As your Lordships have heard me say before, the first responsibility is to one's own children, even where stepchildren have no one to provide for them. Where paying the standard formula assessment causes difficulty, the protected income calculation will ensure sufficient disposable income left after paying child support to meet the needs of all the members of the household and has always done so.
The noble Earl also asked about the poverty trap created by not allowing income support clients to apply for departures. I am not sure whether I understood that because, once the parent moves into work, he can immediately apply for a departure if he has the appropriate expenses. I cannot see how someone on income support, and therefore, I assume, not working, can have travel-to-work costs and so on.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was referring to people doing part-time jobs for a short number of hours, which I think is better than doing no work at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I agree that it is better than doing no work at all. However, I do not see where a poverty trap comes in there. If they are doing a few hours' work, they are allowed to do so within the rules of income support. If they do more than that, they start having their income support reduced.
The point remains—it is a point on which the noble Earl and I disagree—that a person on income support who is happily married and is looking after his own children has to face up to all these problems and costs. I do not think we can say that, because someone is divorced, the acting parent can somehow have all the other factors taken into consideration when it comes to trying to reduce the financial obligations he has to his child or children. I know that the Liberal Democrat Party takes an entirely different view of this. It is opposed to the child support system and would like to go back to the old system. The interesting point is that the old system run by the courts was not nearly as successful as the rose-coloured spectacles of some people make out. I am not surprised that the Law Society prefers a court-based system. Of course it would say that, wouldn't it? It would always say that it preferred a court-based system. But while the liable relative scheme was very successful in identifying absent parents, only 20 per cent. of those absent parents made an arrangement to pay maintenance. The payments themselves were on average 50 per cent. lower than under the Child Support Agency.
One of the biggest difficulties of the agency is that many people out there do not want to fulfil their obligations to their children. One understands that. But
1234
I—and, I know, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—do not approve of that. We believe that those men—it is largely men—ought to be made to face up to their responsibilities. They had a small part to play in the creation of those children. The responsibility does not end when they walk away from the marriage, no matter how clean the break may have been.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon, but last time he accused our Benches of saying that men could walk away from their responsibilities, he ended up offering an apology. I should be very grateful if he would do it again.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I read a document put out by a group of fathers who run fairly virulent campaigns against the Child Support Agency and I read some material from the Liberal Democrat Party. Perhaps I misread it, but the Liberal Democrats do not seem to be even vaguely in favour of a Child Support Agency which will ensure that absent parents pay a fair contribution towards their children and do not depend on other taxpayers, many of whom are busy in their marriages looking after their own children and do not have money to spare to help to look after their neighbours when their neighbours ought to be looking after their own. I am perfectly clear on that. I am glad to hear that the noble Earl agrees with me. The next time I read the newsletter, I look forward to seeing some more moderate remarks from the Liberal Democrat Party about the system we have devised to try to ensure that the absent parent pays the parent with care and does not leave her and her child or children entirely at the mercy of the state and other taxpayers.
I hope I have answered the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations Child Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996
5.35 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations and Child Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (No. 2450) and then to lay amended regulations which are clearly in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move an amended version of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In order to explain that, I must begin by giving my thanks to the Minister, who notified me late on Friday afternoon that the form referred to in my original Motion has now been made available. I am most grateful to him for that. I am most grateful to him also for the advance notice of it. It is clearly inappropriate to call on the Minister to provide a form which he has now provided.
The original Motion was as follows:
"That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations and Child Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (No. 2450) until the form approved by the Secretary of State, on which all appeals must be lodged, can be made available and then to lay amended regulations which are clearly in conformity with the principles of natural justice".
In the new Motion I am moving we leave out everything from "until" in line 3 to "available" in line 4. I am extremely grateful that those words are now unnecessary.
The principles of natural justice were once described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as the judicial way of saying "fair play". I do not wish, by wording the Motion as I have done, to suggest that legislation must conform with the principles of natural justice but I wish to suggest that it is on the whole desirable that it should do so. It tends to work rather better if it does. Those principles are not derived from statute. They are actually older than Parliament and therefore cannot depend on statute. They have evolved into a series of fairly clear specific principles. The ones with which I am concerned here are that we should hear both sides, that there should be an orderly and fair procedure and that reasons should be given for decisions.
In these regulations we are dealing with appeals from people who are or have been on benefits. So, on the one hand, we have people of very limited financial resources, sometimes of very limited ability, sometimes suffering from mental impairment of one kind or another and sometimes suffering from difficulties of language. On the other side, we have a department with very considerable resources—a filing system, a computer system and methods of transferring information from one place to another. It is not exactly an equal contest with someone keeping his records in a cardboard box in "cardboard city". One cannot always keep regulations in perfect order in that situation. So any desire to get an orderly and fair procedure must take some account of this inequality between the parties in contention.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux told me as recently as last Friday afternoon that the regulations are creating a more intense level of concern among its local bureaux than anything else it can remember for a very long time. Looking at them and thinking about them, I am beginning to understand why that is so.
I shall deal first with Regulation 14(2), which is a very clear provision that notice must always be given of an appeal in writing. We do not always stop to think enough about the rights of illiterates. I was brought to think about them very abruptly when I was nine years of age. My father put in an application for a ration book and being a Peer he signed it "Russell". He was told that that was not a correct signature and that he was illiterate; and that being illiterate he was not entitled to a ration book. I have been concerned about the rights of illiterates ever since, because I thought then, what if he had really been an illiterate and what would have happened? I would like to know what the Minister can say in reply to that.
Regulation 4(5) gives a long list of required particulars which must be put in in exactly the right form. The time of the appeal cannot begin to run until they are put in. Manchester Trinity Citizens Advice Bureau found that the appeal was held to be valid only if all these reasons were given. Some of them, such as medical information from the Benefit Agency's doctor in an incapacity benefit case, could not be put in on an appeal because the doctor's reasons did not come in until just before the hearing. So if that is going to be applied throughout, appeals against the Benefit Agency's doctor in incapacity benefit cases could not be lodged.
There is another point about that. There has been at least one ruling already that an appeal on incapacity benefit cannot be lodged until reasons are given for disagreeing with the scoring system of the Benefit Agency's doctor. In the mental health provisions no scoring system operates, so how is an appeal to be made in a mental health matter? I do not see the answer to that under the wording of these regulations.
They have been put through in considerable haste. The consultation period ended on 1st October, but the regulations were laid on 27th September. That is the sort of consultation which the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, used to do at its very worst. It is not worthy of the Department of Social Security, which usually does better than that. I hope that the Minister can explain the reasons for this great and unseemly haste.
It is important to realise that in order to conduct a proper appeal it is necessary to understand what is really the point at issue, because until one understands that one cannot put in any evidence that goes against it. I remember listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, talking about the difficulties of litigants in person. He said that because it takes time to explain to them exactly what is at issue, the case takes a great deal longer. What they are entitled to is equally the entitlement of social security claimants. Regulation 9, which restricts oral hearings to those who have made a specific demand for one or when in the opinion of the chairman it would manifestly do injustice if there was not one, is too restrictive. Such a thing cannot be manifest until a hearing has taken place.
I am not sure that people on benefit will know whether they need to request an oral hearing in writing. How many people know that they need to register to vote? Certainly among my pupils a very large majority do not at the material time. I discover six months later that they are not registered and they cannot vote—and very surprised they are, too. If that happens to people who, by definition, are of some ability, what are we to expect among people on benefit? In many cases as regards habitual residence appeals and voluntary unemployment appeals it is difficult to see how a proper decision can be reached without questioning the applicant, because one simply does not elicit the evidence which is necessary to review the decision.
To put it no higher, I am taken aback by Regulation 5, which limits the notice of a hearing to seven calendar days. There is no exception for the week between Christmas and the New Year. If I were given notice on

1237
24th December, or by a posting on 24th December, of a hearing on 29th December, it is highly unlikely I would even receive that notice, let alone respond to it. There are special difficulties about the dates of a hearing—for which there is no provision in these regulations that I can see—for those who because of disability have difficulty in movement, especially in remote rural areas.
A case arose in North Cornwall in the constituency of my honourable friend Mr. Tyler. It concerned somebody who had to have an incapacity benefit hearing and who was confined to a wheelchair. The hearing took place in a town 35 miles away. The bus ran one day a week. The day fixed for the hearing was not the day on which the bus ran. So he asked whether they could change the date of the hearing to the day on which the bus ran, but they could not. He asked whether they could meet the expenses for a taxi to attend the hearing, but they could not. So in the end he did not attend the hearing. That amounts to a denial of justice.
To cope with difficulties of that sort, when one has to rely on the help of other people who are not necessarily available 24 hours every day of the week, seven days' notice is an unrealistic amount of time. If it has to be seven days, could not the department at least alter it to seven working days? I would not say that that would be satisfactory, but it would be a great deal less unsatisfactory than what we have now.
In Regulation 11 there are considerable cutbacks on the giving of reasons for decisions. There are quite extraordinary things that come under this heading. There was a case of a person who applied for a funeral payment under the Social Fund and was told, "Your appeal is refused. The reason is that we cannot pay you". That is not the sort of reason which gives rise to grounds for appeal.
The point about reasons for decisions is that they have to he something that is theoretically capable of being rebutted by further evidence. Decisions can be given in such form,
"as shall have been approved by the President",
of the tribunal. Can we be given any indication at all of what sort of form that might be? At present it might meet the requirement if the decisions were delivered in Chinese script. I am sure that that is not the department's intention, but some further definition might have been welcome. Decisions may be given not at the hearing but,
"at such later date as the chairman may determine".
There is no terminus ante quem in that at all. I would not say that the decision could wait until the Millennium because, after all, that is quite speedy decision-making. But it could perfectly well wait until the century after that without infringing the words of the regulation. We need tighter wording.
Finally, I recommend to the Minister that he reads the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the case of the Al Fayeds and the Home Secretary. It is an extremely interesting judgment delivered on the grounds of natural justice and concentrating on the requirement to give reasons. I understand that that case is sub judice and I shall discuss it only in a way appropriate to the situation. That case is on its way to
1238
your Lordships' House. This case is not on all fours with that, but there are points of resemblance. It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the Minister to revoke the regulations until such time as the opinion of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House on that case is known and until the reasons for its decision are also known because until we know the reasons we cannot know whether they are likely to apply to these regulations. But the possibility is one that the department would be wise to consider.
Hitherto, for a good many centuries, both Ministers and the courts have shown a laudable lack of curiosity about what happens when a statute and the principles of natural justice clash. I approve that lack of curiosity, but now that the judgment is available and can be read, the Minister seems to be approaching the matter with a curiosity which is positively feline. And the Minister knows where that leads.
Moved to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations and Child Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (No. 2450) and then to lay amended regulations which are clearly in conformity with the principles of natural justice.—(Earl Russell.)
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for drawing attention to a serious and real problem. Because of the conventions of this House we shall not be voting with him if he decides to test the opinion of the House. Nonetheless, we join him in hoping that the Government will take these points seriously and see whether they can reconsider the implication of some of the regulations.
Our criticisms are twofold. They relate, first, to the timing of the regulations and, secondly, to their substance. The Government's White Paper was published on 23rd July. The orders were laid in late September, three weeks before the consultation ended on 18th October and three days after they were implemented. The White Paper was therefore effectively published, consulted on, and the orders were made, laid and implemented all while Parliament was in recess. That is a cynical way to behave and is utterly disrespectful of parliamentary conventions. In other words, it was a consultation paper about which everybody was consulted, except Parliament, including your Lordships' House.
Our second body of criticism relates to the substance of the regulations. These so-called "improvements" to efficiency are efficient only in the sense that they effectively deter, discourage and finally debar people from making DSS and CSA appeals to tribunals. That suggests that what the department is interested in is an uncluttered, untroubled life and that appellants (especially if they are not well educated, are not represented by a lawyer or are elderly, confused, sick or disabled) who clutter up the system should be deterred from appealing if possible and, if not, should be discouraged from seeking an oral hearing. I mean every word when I say that these changes by regulation are a

1239
serious assault on the access and the right of ordinary people, especially disadvantaged people, to use tribunals for appeal.
However, our criticisms are even more detailed than that. First, the new application forms were not available until four weeks after the new procedure was in place. Applicants were thus expected to handle a new system without the relevant forms. Secondly, many applicants are being discouraged from seeking even a paper appeal, let alone an oral appeal. It is clear that the department is anxious to discourage oral hearings. An applicant has only 10 days in which to request such a hearing and has to do so formally, by application. In other words, applicants are channelled into a paper review, yet we know that if applicants attend in person they have a 46 per cent. success rate at tribunal. If applicants attend and are accompanied, they have a 67 per cent. success rate at tribunal. However, according to the Minister's latest quarterly figures on the all work test appeals, if applicants neither attend, let alone are accompanied, and have only a paper hearing, the success rate is barely 7 per cent.—compared to 67 per cent. if accompanied and appealing in person.
As the noble Earl said, oral hearings are essential, especially for those who are not literate, for whom English is not their first language, and who are not skilled at handling and managing paper. Will the Minister at the very least agree that the new forms state clearly that an applicant may have an oral hearing if he wishes and the timescale for that? The procedure for oral hearings should be transparent, even to those who are most disadvantaged when dealing with bureaucracy.
Another point well made by the noble Earl is that the period of notice has been reduced to seven calendar days when the Council on Tribunals argues that it should be at least 21 days. One calendar week is not sufficient for those who are carers or who are in work and who have to re-arrange their responsibilities, especially when complicated by the problems of access which the noble Earl documented.
I also understand that under the new "improved" changes claimants will be given only the most abbreviated explanation of why the appeal failed. At the moment an advisory tribunal has to complete only one A4 double-sided sheet, of which only the last four inches are devoted to space in which the tribunal can set out the reasons for the decision. That does not seem unduly burdensome, but it ensures that the decision is in writing and that the claimant can take it away, consider it and, if necessary, seek advice. Will the Government reconsider and give claimants an automatic right to a written reason for the rejection of an appeal rather than the claimant having to request it, especially as the request may not be dealt with until some three or four weeks later when the cutting edge of the argument has no doubt vanished from the tribunal's mind?
I understand that where an appeal is decided on the papers and not by personal attendance, only the tribunal chairman has those papers in advance. The other two tribunal members see the papers for the first time when they sit down at the bench. That means either that if the tribunal is to do a thorough job it will take longer than
1240
at present and thus delay the system or—and more likely—that the tribunal will be asked to rubber stamp the chairman's decision, making it essentially a tribunal of one, thus involving real injustice for the claimant. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that all tribunal members will have the full set of papers in advance so that claimants who do not have an oral hearing (and who are already disadvantaged by having the hearing on paper) can at least have the confidence that all tribunal members will have full access to their papers?
As was said in another place, the Minister and the regulations are making it difficult—deliberately so, in my view—for people to get a form; making it difficult for them to fill in the form; making it difficult for them to find arguments to submit to the department; and making it difficult for claimants to submit the form and to ask for an oral hearing before their time to appeal has elapsed, thereby jeopardising their probability of success. The right way to improve the tribunal system is to have sound and clear laws, not ambiguous formularies which have to be continually tested and re-tested on appeal. The Minister has no right to try to make good bad laws by cutting corners on the appeals system, which is what these regulations do.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the Motion tabled by the noble Earl and answer some of the points raised by him and by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
I would like to start by briefly outlining the background to the changes introduced by the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. Last February my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a review of the administration of social security. Ministers had been concerned for some time about the appeals system. The average clearance time on appeals to social security appeal tribunals is currently 26 weeks, and this is the shortest time. On medical appeal tribunals the average clearance time is 36 weeks. I am sure your Lordships will agree that, as people who have been refused benefit generally have to wait for disputes to be settled without benefit, any reduction to the clearance times that can be made should be done as quickly as possible. I am quite surprised that the Government do not have the support of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness in their determination to try to cut down the time. At one stage I believed that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, agreed with the need to deal with these cases as quickly as possible. If one is to do that one must look seriously at the procedures one uses and see how they can be improved.
The number of appeals outstanding is also rising. Since April 1995 the number has risen by over 25,000, and all this despite the fact that the Independent Tribunal Service is running more sessions and clearing more appeals than before. We therefore discussed with the people who operate the tribunal system what could be done to assist them to make improvements. It was clear that some of the rules in legislation were contributing to the delays and that some improvements

1241
were dependent on changes to those rules. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State issued a consultation document in the summer entitled Improving Decision Making and Appeals in Social Security. That document outlined a number of radical changes which needed primary legislation and on which he sought views. We are currently considering the views that we have received in response to that document. However, the Green Paper also announced changes to secondary legislation to be implemented in the autumn subject to consultation with the Council on Tribunals. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State answered a parliamentary Question in the other place on 23rd July when he announced the publication of the Green Paper and consultation with the Council on Tribunals. A copy of the consultation letter to the Council on Tribunals was placed in the Library.
The president of the Independent Tribunal Service, His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte, was formally asked for his comments. Most of the changes were supported by the president, not surprisingly since a number of them were suggested by his administrative and judicial staff. The Council on Tribunals was also generally content with the proposals, though I shall return to that later.
I turn now to the changes introduced by the regulations referred to in the Motion before us. These changes cover a number of different areas in the appeals system and will, we believe, speed up processes. They will not take away any existing appeal rights but they will place some responsibility on appellants to support the process.
Parties will be asked to opt for an oral hearing. Appellants will be approached early in the process, but their option is not irrevocable. They can change their minds at any time before the decision is actually issued. If no oral hearing is requested the appeal papers will be sent out and the parties will have the opportunity to comment and submit additional evidence if they wish. Only after that process will the appeal be heard on the papers. There is no change to the appellant's absolute right to an oral hearing, and we shall continue to inform appellants that they have a better chance of winning if they attend. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, waxed very indignant about this matter. She demanded to know what was on the form. I am sure that even she will agree that the new form is an improvement on the old one, in that the position as to paper or oral hearings is made perfectly clear.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I ask the Minister to give way. If the forms had been produced before the regulations were introduced we might all have had a chance to see them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Baroness should not attack something that she has not already had the chance to see. She could perhaps have said that it was a pity that she had not seen it, as she has just done, but if she had contained herself with a little patience she would have heard me read out the one and only paragraph that I intended to read. In bold print standing out clearly
1242
from the rest of the page is one paragraph at the end of the section that deals with oral hearings. It is not the only paragraph that deals with oral hearings. The paragraph states quite clearly:
"Please note that claimants who attend the hearing of their appeal usually do better than those who do not".
The suggestion that the noble Baroness makes that somehow the Government are attempting to slip something in without telling people that they have a better chance if they go to an oral appeal is simply not true. We make it very clear in the form that that is the situation.
As far as concerns the 10 days' notice in which to decide whether or not an oral hearing is required, the first letter from the Independent Tribunal Service to appellants asks whether they want an oral hearing. The appellant has only to answer yes or no. It is not a formal application. The appellant has only to tick a box if he wants an oral hearing. This clear decision-making about oral hearings or not oral hearings should make for the more efficient handling of cases where the appellant chooses not to attend the hearing. Your Lordships might have been excused for thinking that almost nobody allowed his case to go to a paper hearing and that everybody already attended oral hearings. That is not the case. This year some 29 per cent. of cases are handled on paper because appellants have decided that they do not want to appear in person. I believe that all cases will benefit. Non-attended cases can be slotted into vacancies in any part of the country, making much better use of tribunal time and clearing more appeals more quickly.
As to social security appeal tribunals, it currently takes an average of three weeks to get the decision out to the parties. Our changes to the way a decision is promulgated allows for a more flexible approach, offering the right information at the right time, and will reduce the amount of time before the appellant knows the result of his appeal. There will be the option to give a full decision orally on the day, recording it for issue if required. Where a full oral decision is inappropriate, a summary decision may be announced and issued on the day of the hearing. The summary decision will still tell the appellant why he has won or lost his case. It will be easier for appellants to understand because it will not be subsumed in a large amount of other, more technical information.
The form on which the decision will be set out is one approved by the president. I believe that the noble Earl is a little unkind in suggesting that the president of the tribunal may decide to give an order that the form ought to be issued in Chinese or made incomprehensible in some other way. I shall be happy to provide the noble Earl with the standard forms that the president has approved. I believe that he will agree that they are very simple and easy to understand. A full decision will be given if requested within 21 days of the summary decision being issued. The tribunal chairmen may issue these full decisions in appropriate cases without request. Most full decisions are only required where the appellant is contemplating taking the appeal further on a point of law to the social security commissioners. Only 2 per cent. of appeal decisions are taken further, so

1243
98 per cent. of appellants will receive an improved service by getting the decision in a brief way on the day of the hearing.
We have always supplied a form to be used when appealing which was attached to the leaflet How to Appeal. Although the form was little used, it offered guidance on the information needed for the appeal to be processed. Much time has been spent in the past contacting appellants who had failed to say, for example, what benefit the disputed decision referred to. A few did not even supply their full name and address. For that reason we have now specified that the form has to be used to appeal although a letter which contains all the information needed will, as before, also be acceptable. The leaflet with the form attached has been revised and reprinted. Distribution started yesterday and will be completed by the end of this week. A copy has been placed in the Library. Any appeals made on the old form will be acceptable.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me how illiterates would cope. They will cope in the way that they do currently. Nothing changes. Appeals have always been required in writing. The ITS will accept, as it always has done, X as a signature. That has never been a problem and it will not be a problem. Those people who do not understand the form or cannot read or write can get help from the agency. If necessary, the Independent Tribunal Service will also explain what is needed.
More specific information is required from appellants when they make their appeal, especially to explain their reasons for disputing the decision. Guidance is in the leaflet and on the form on what is required. Where essential information is omitted, staff of the Independent Tribunal Service will contact the appellant and explain exactly what information is needed. If appellants can be more explicit right at the start on what it is about the decision they object to, the agencies can better identify cases that can be corrected without the appellant waiting for six months to go to a hearing. It may be that all the appellant wants is an explanation, and that can be given. I should have thought that most noble Lords would welcome progress in that regard.
With regard to the noble Earl's concern about incapacity benefit appeals, he was worried about mental incapacity descriptors. I do not believe that his concerns are justified. A person may submit medical evidence in the form, for example, of a letter from his or her doctor. Such people do not need to argue about the descriptors. That is not a problem that will impinge on people with mental difficulties.
The proposal to reduce the notice period of a hearing from 10 to five days was not supported by the Council on Tribunals. It is 10 days at the moment. After further consideration, we decided that seven days was sufficient as a minimum—I stress a minimum—period for all jurisdictions except child support. Appellants are informed by the ITS early in the process of the time they expect to receive papers from the agency and can use that time to prepare their case. They do not start preparing their case when they are told they are about to go to the hearing. They can start preparing the case much earlier. The papers themselves are generally
1244
issued 14 days before the hearing. Appellants' rights are protected by the fact that, if a given date is not manageable, they can request a postponement.
If your Lordships listened carefully to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, you might have been forgiven for thinking that there was no option for postponement: if the appellant did not turn up, then that was that. That is not true. He or she can request a postponement. Someone in the circumstances of the case mentioned by the noble Earl can have a domiciliary hearing—they can have a home visit for the hearing—or they can have the taxi fare paid. If the noble Earl wants to give me the details of the case I shall look into it, but so far as concerns the general rules, I do not believe that there should have been a problem in that case if it was as the noble Earl has presented.
We have made some other minor changes. For example, we have allowed clerks to make straightforward decisions on postponement and change-of-venue requests, thus freeing up the time of the chairmen to sit more often and hear more appeals. Other changes include making withdrawals more simple, strengthening the chairmen's powers of direction, giving the chairmen the option of expediting a hearing and not requiring a particular notice to be sent to an appellant whose whereabouts are not known.
The reason for making those changes was to enable the ITS to offer appellants a better, quicker service. We are confident that they offer more flexibility, removing some unhelpful procedures from the system. The impact of the changes will of course be monitored. We hope that they will allow for a reduction in the time appellants have to wait to have their dispute resolved without in any way affecting an appellant's rights.
I am surprised that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl can disagree with that objective. The proposals will help the ITS to work for the benefit of those people who appeal. It will mean that their appeals will be held more quickly, and therefore, if they win their appeal, they will receive their benefit sooner. The noble Earl normally approves of that. Having heard my case, I hope that he will approve of it this evening.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he answer, perhaps in writing, the point I raised about only the chairmen having the full papers in advance and the two tribunal members not seeing the papers literally until they turn up? Can he give me an assurance to that effect or write to me about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness about that.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for his reply on illiterates, but I am afraid that that is all that is left of the harmony with which we so happily began the day. I am afraid that we are now resuming business as usual. I heard what the Minister said about there being no need to argue about the descriptors in an incapacity benefit test. I wonder whether he could

1245
convey that opinion around the country to the Benefits Agency, because what he says is not what is happening on the ground.
I am also aware that it is possible to put in a request for a postponement of a hearing. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that the CABs are reporting that such requests are being routinely refused point blank without any reason. What the Minister says is true, but it is not sufficient.
The Minister also argues—I must admit that I found this a little cool—that we should speed up the procedure because people suffer hardship because they wait without benefit pending appeal. The Minister knows my views and those of the noble Baroness on people being made to wait without benefit pending appeal. If he had listened to us in the first place, his argument would have no force.
Of course I understand the need to speed up proceedings whenever it is possible, but I have listened to lawyers and to judges arguing about the need to speed up proceedings. What one hears there is a heartbreakingly difficult see-saw balancing operation between the need for speed and the need for justice. It is only if one understands both those needs that one can even attempt to balance them at all. Mr. Roger Evans, introducing these regulations in another place is not as careful over his choice of language as is the Minister here. Mr. Evans said:
"These reforms are directed to reducing inefficiencies; they have no bearing on whether justice is being done, but are designed to ensure that the system operates properly".—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 7/11/96; col. 5.]
I should have thought that whether the system operates properly had something to do with whether it was just, but we are here back with our old ministerial friend "efficiency". I have been complaining for years that government departments are far more interested in efficiency than in effectiveness. This is yet another example of that fact, and a very sad one. There is no use speeding things up by getting them wrong, because that is when you get to the point when efficiency is not efficient.
I was of course aware of the Green Paper. I have read it in full, and been extremely interested in it. I had some misgivings about it at the time. Those misgivings have substantially increased during today's debate. I agree with the Minister when he says that there continues to be an absolute right to an oral hearing, but some rights are easier to exercise than others. This one is rather harder than it was before. If that is not the purpose of the regulation on oral hearings, then what on earth is its purpose? If it is not designed to discourage oral hearings, surely it is totally redundant. It can serve no other useful purpose.
Of course I understand that the president of the tribunal is not likely to send out reasons in Chinese characters, but the Minister should now be familiar with the word "vires". He is being given powers so that he could if he wanted to. I do not believe that that is good legislation. In general, that was a reply which was worthy of British Gas. I am not going to press this Motion to a Division now. It would not control that
1246
exercise of power. I am afraid that we must accept that the control of executive power, because it is not being done here, must be left to the courts. If the Government do not like that, they will have to alter the operation of Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Family Health Clubs
6.20 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to respond to the growing interest in the provision of family health clubs, along the lines of the pioneer Peckham Health Centre.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was two and a half years ago that I spoke on this subject to a House which was even emptier than it is tonight. However, I was consoled by the fact that Hansard for that day sold very well and I believe that it will do so again today. Many people are seriously interested in the problem, although this is not a good time of night to discuss it.
I shall not repeat what I said on the last occasion, beyond reminding your Lordships that for two years before the war I worked at the old Peckham health centre and I have been a trustee of the existing company ever since. I wish to begin by quoting from a letter which I received last week from a lady who was a member of the old centre. She writes:
"I was so thrilled to hear the programme on Radio 4 about the Centre and to know that its spirit still lives on. The Centre had such a tremendous influence on my life. Our Family was among the first to join in 1935, when I was 10 years old. My mother learned to swim at 51 and went on to dive off the top diving boards until well into her 70s. My brothers and sisters all met their future partners at the Centre. At 71 now I am still diving and keep-fitting twice a week".
That experience is a tribute of which we can be proud, and it was shared by a large number of people.
After nearly 50 years of quiescence, the ideas of the old centre are bobbing up all over the place and I thought it right to ask the Government whether they are aware of the growing interest of more and more people in the idea of a family health centre. Now that both Tory and Labour parties, and of course the Lib Dems, are stressing the importance of arresting the observable decline in family values, it is encouraging that more and more people should be turning to the old Peckham principles. So I thought that it was time to make sure that the Government and their successor will pay attention to the growing desire to restore the happy family life which is the true basis for a happy and effective nation. And nothing is more likely to do so than the establishment of family health centres.
First, perhaps I may tell your Lordships of several developments which are on the way already. Southwark Council, which inherited the splendid old Peckham building, which was used first as an education centre and is now for sale, has planned and begun to build a fine new building next door. It is to be called the Peckham Pulse. For this it has got a large grant from the Sports Council and another from the Lambeth,

1247
Southwark and Lewisham Health Authorities, and building is already under way. The centre, like its original though much larger, will have a range of facilities surrounding the existing medical centre and including a 25 metre swimming pool, a fitness suite, an exercise development area, a children's soft-play area and a cafeteria. This is one of the first, and so far the most advanced and largest, new versions of the centre. It does not yet accept all our precepts, but that may come later.
Perhaps I may give the House a list of other centres which are on the way. I shall not give details tonight because I do not want to bore your Lordships more than is absolutely necessary. There are two centres at Sheffield, one backed by the health authority and one by an individual. There is one at Newcastle, which was recently and gloriously opened by Tony Blair. There is one at Castle Vale in Birmingham. There is one at Berwick Hill in Middlesbrough, which is in the Tees Health Authority area. There is a centre at the Chalkhill Estate in Brent, whose group is chaired by Mr. McFadyen. There is another at Beaconsfield, which is backed by the town centre and the health authority. There is one at Bruce Road in Bromley by Bow, and the chief executive is the Reverend Andrew Mawson. There are three at Epsom and Ewell: at Bourne Hall, a more or less exact copy called the Lifestyle Centre, and another called the Chris Lane Centre.
All those centres are in existence. One or two are functioning; the others are looking for money and making plans. I hope that increasingly they will turn out to be proper versions of our old centre. I am confident that they will succeed and will be used by families, old and young together, who will each be proud of their own centre.
The position is widening and growing. The success of the first few examples of the application of the Peckham principles, if they achieve success, each in their own way aiming to improve the quality of life and the stability of the family, will quite certainly lead to more and more efforts to do likewise. I want to be sure that the Government are ready for this. Local areas take time to decide that they want full attention concentrated on family health and opportunity, but once they have made up their minds to move in that direction it should be made easy for them. But success breeds success and there is no doubt in my mind that the efforts to which I have referred are only the beginning and will spread rapidly. Are the Government ready to back this movement to the hilt, as they certainly should? The noble Baroness has already shown her interest and given invaluable help but I am asking for more strength for her elbow.
Your Lordships will see that I am confident that the idea will spread in areas which can afford it. However, the inner cities, which are in the worst trouble, will not be able to afford such centres. Therefore, they must receive special treatment, and I want the Government to realise that in inner city areas only such centres will produce a solution. Nothing else will do so because
1248
families break up and disperse. If one can once bring the families together there is hope. I had intended to say more about that but I shall not do so.
Families need other families and somewhere to meet one another. The old need to meet the old, the young need to meet the young, and all ages need to mix and to have facilities for healthy exercise and amusement. In a short time the effect of young children insisting on going to a gymnasium is that their parents then join. First the older children go, then the younger children and then the parents are brought in. They then begin to take exercise and, if necessary, to pay for that. The setting up of such centres would be cheaper than allowing things to go wrong and trying to put them right afterwards. It would cost infinitely less than trying to deal with the unhappiness and misery that follows from the present gradual disintegration.
We in PHC Limited sold our building and had a small capital sum which we used to keep the community going. We have engaged a skilled and energetic young man—he is 37, which is my idea of young—to answer inquiries and spread information to all who need it. Experience suggests that if proper plans are made many of the endeavours will raise the necessary money, helped no doubt sometimes by money from the lottery, and will gradually spread all over the country. If anyone wishes to ask questions, please ring our secretary, Pam Elven, who is herself a product of Peckham. Her number is 01483 893266—and that will appear in Hansard!
I am speaking of the future, of tomorrow, not of today. I shall not be here to see it, but I visualise a Great Britain with a better quality of life, with happier families and happier children than we have today. I believe that the way will be hastened and helped by the spread of the family health centres that we have been discussing. It has begun, and it must go on. I now call upon the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to tell your Lordships about his work with Loughborough University. He spoke in our last debate and made sufficient impression upon us that we bullied him into becoming our president.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for tabling this Question and for allowing us to have this short debate. I am not sure what the Companion to the Standing Orders says about the quoting of telephone numbers during one's speech, but I am sure that that number will appear in Hansard.
As the noble Lord said, today's debate follows a similar Question which was tabled by the noble Lord on 11th April 1994. I must say that the noble Lord has been highly successful in promoting the ideas, ideals and principles of the Peckham centre as kept alive by the pioneer health centre. Moreover, as the noble Lord said, it has been kind enough to make me its president. There has also been an excellent programme on Radio 4 within the past 12 months on the subject.
When we had the debate in 1994 I must admit that, before I saw the Question on the Order Paper, I had never heard of the Peckham centre, despite the fact that

1249
I was born at the Elephant and Castle and spent the first seven years of my life living only a mile or two from the place. Therefore, I have gone from ignorance to president in 12 months.
However, when researching for that debate I became quite fascinated by the concept of the Peckham approach as it related exactly to another interest that I should declare; namely, that I am chairman of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. It seemed to me that the Peckham centre was an early "community health co-operative". With the increased interest that we have now in finding new structures to deliver good health, it seemed to me that the Peckham ideas might be worth investigating to test their relevance against today's requirements.
Here I must pay a warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I believe that the noble Baroness was as intrigued as I was when, following the debate in 1994, I approached her in my capacity as chairman of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council and suggested that the Department of Health should sponsor a report on the subject. The Minister gave the idea very enthusiastic backing and, indeed, the Department of Health duly sponsored the report prepared by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University entitled, The Potential Contribution of the Co-operative Movement and Community Well-Being Centres to Health of the Nation Activities.
I should perhaps point out that the term "community well-being centres" was coined by the Minister herself. We were all anxious to avoid the term "health centre", with its overtones of medical care, conjuring up pictures of X-ray machines, electro cardiograms and the like and, as I am sure the Minister will remember, she actually said at one of our meetings, "Why not call them community well-being centres?" So the name was born.
The debate today is particularly appropriate. I believe that the date is not accidental; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is not as innocent as that. However, as I said, today's debate is particularly appropriate as the Minister has kindly agreed to address the annual forum of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council on the subject in Manchester on Friday. There is a major conference at the Co-operative College at Stanford Hall in Loughborough next Tuesday to discuss the CRSP report. I have heard this afternoon that the uptake of that conference is extremely good.
Time does not allow me to analyse the report in detail, but it is likely to be the first of many incentives in the area. The emphasis in the report is on a holistic approach to good health which is built on the core Peckham principles, as set out in the report, which are:
"An orientation towards health, interpreted in a broad, holistic way; member participation and self-determination; multi-generational membership"—
that is jargon for family membership—
"and a range of opportunities and integrated activities. Co-operative approaches in health and welfare, as elsewhere, are characterised by democratic organisation and ownership, with open and voluntary membership and a fair division of investment and distribution. They provide the expression of and the means to member participation and empowerment".
1250
The report identifies nearly 300 initiatives, a number of which were mentioned by the noble Lord. It is clear, as I said earlier, that this whole area of health care will receive increasing attention. Perhaps I may give your Lordships just one more quotation from the report. In its summary it also says:
"Participation and ownership are seen as the key, strategic objectives. Success is associated with holistic approaches which encourage, enhance or maintain a high degree of user and community involvement, and engage and empower members. Success is related to the willingness of agencies to make a more or less equal commitment and to develop appropriate organisational supports to working in alliance. The source and security of financial support are crucial".
We should also recognise that the area in which these centres will be working—and, indeed, the background—is very different from the Peckham phase. I have in mind the idea of the nuclear family and, for example, the problems with single-parent families, ethnic minorities, and so. I suggest that these are areas which the Health of the Nation has still to reach properly. I know that the Government are concerned in that respect and we support them in their attempts to try to get over the argument contained in the Health of the Nation to the population generally.
When the Minister replies, I am sure that she will say that the Government are not yet satisfied—nor, indeed, are any of us—with the way in which we have been able to get over the message contained in the Health of the Nation to those communities which most need it, especially those in inner cities. As I said, the concept of the Peckham centre still applies, but we must realise that it must be approached in a different way.
The report emphasises the way in which there are plans, initiatives and centres actually in being or being planned all over the country which attempt to deal with the problem. Indeed, on a lighter note I shall repeat a point which I made in the debate of April 1994: things have changed. An excellent video has been made by the pioneer health centre which describes the history of Peckham. It is extremely interesting. While watching that video I was most amused, as I know was the Minister, who has also seen the video, to see the family together—that is, the mother, father and two children—having their annual consultation with the doctor at the Peckham centre during which session the father was smoking a cigarette. I do not believe that that would happen now.
As I said, there has been a change. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has made a real contribution to this. He was one of the pioneers who was actually at the centre. Indeed, we have had someone listening to the debate who is a member of the centre. I believe that the pioneer health centre should be congratulated on the way in which it has kept the idea alive. The report shows that there is much to be done, but the initiative of the noble Lord both today and in 1994 in raising the subject has been instrumental in ensuring that such an important subject remains firmly on the health agenda.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for introducing the debate again this evening. I thought that it was very fitting that, as a former trustee of the original pioneer health centre, he should have raised the subject as he did in your Lordships' House in April 1994. On that evening we not only had an interesting and constructive debate, but the debate actually stimulated a whole range of activities, not least the report by Loughborough University referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. In the intervening period I have noticed with enormous interest a whole range of new initiatives that have been developing, many of which are referred to in the report.
But, thankfully, we are a much healthier nation than we were when the pioneer health centre was built in 1926. At the beginning of the 1920s, average life expectancy for men was only 56 and for women 60. Today, we are living around 20 years longer. Fifty years ago, on average, for every 100,000 births, 400 women died in pregnancy or childbirth—a shocking figure, a huge toll on marital and family life. Today, that 400 has been reduced to six. Today the number of babies dying in their first year of life is at the lowest level ever recorded. Death rates from coronary heart disease, stroke, cancers and accidents are falling steadily.
Our children are an inch and a half taller than their counterparts of even 30 years ago, and with effective vaccination and immunisation programmes some childhood diseases have almost disappeared. Last year there were only 57 confirmed cases of measles and in 1992 we introduced a new vaccine which has almost completely eliminated Hib meningitis in young children.
Those are health statistics. I appreciate that the noble Lord has been talking about social health as well as medical health, if I can put it like that. One has to take into account how radically the world has changed since those early visionaries set up the Peckham experiment, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said. Certainly if we look just at health, it has changed for the better. But of course your Lordships are right to say that we cannot be complacent. There is still a great deal of avoidable ill health and too many premature deaths. There are stubborn variations in health between men and women, regions of the country, different ethnic groups and different social groups. Those are issues that the Government and others need to address.
This evening's debate has drawn attention to a great deal of interest in the way that the Peckham experiment approached the aim of improving health, and a feeling among many people that some of its lessons are still relevant today. Stimulated by the interest, enthusiasm, persistence and determination of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the department has, as he said, recently funded research looking at exactly this issue. The research examined how the concept of community well-being centres—the Peckham model—was being put into practice in the 1990s and how such activities could contribute to the Health of the Nation, the Government's strategy for improving health across the population.
1252
The result of what is a fascinating report, produced by the Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, needs to be widely disseminated. I have placed copies in the Library for all your Lordships who might be interested in reading it. If any Members of your Lordships' House are feeling in need of a tonic, or a pre-winter pick-me-up, I strongly recommend reading it because it is full of interest, innovation, achievement and hope.
The majority of the report is devoted to a review of existing activities, broadly described as community well-being centres, which draw on the principles underpinning the Peckham experiment. These are an holistic and positive view of health, rather than a focus on disease; an attempt to influence the wider determinants of health; to involve interests outside health services and health professionals; and to involve individuals and communities in taking responsibility for their own health.
Many of the projects mentioned emphasise the active involvement of local people in setting priorities and in finding their own solutions for local problems. I have visited and been impressed by several of the projects which are described within the report. The Life Project in the Wirral was a national winner of the Health Alliance Awards in both years the awards have been held. The judges were impressed not only by its comprehensive range of services and the populations covered, but by its thorough evaluation. Set up in 1993 because of concern about high rates of coronary heart disease, the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Wirral Health Authority and the University of Liverpool worked in support of local people, and with a wide range of partners in a programme of six projects. These included a GP exercise referral scheme, health checks in pubs and shopping centres, healthy schools, exercise training, and rehabilitation following heart attacks and strokes. Some 42 per cent. of people registered on the GP exercise referral scheme have been able safely to reduce their medication.
Another example which mirrors much of the original Peckham experiment is the Blackthorne Medical Centre in Kent. Urged by my very good noble friend Lady Faithfull to visit the centre, I found a place full of inspiration, dynamically led by Dr. David McGavin and his partners. The centre has not only the full range of skills and expertise patients would hope to find in any top rate primary health care team, but it promotes art, music, eurhythmics, massage and counselling for patients with any condition. The market garden, cafe and bakery provide essential employment for those suffering from long-term mental illness. It is one of the most inspiring places I have ever visited and talking to the patients, and the local community, including an army of volunteers, I have no doubt whatsoever that they value its therapeutic properties.
I hope that the Loughborough report will be of interest to a wide range of people and organisations, not only health and local authorities but also voluntary organisations, manufacturing and commercial interests, police, probation, the business community, universities, schools, colleges and others. We are taking active steps to disseminate it widely, as I have said. We have paid

1253
for the production of a short summary of the report which is available free to anybody who may he interested. Both the report and the summary have been widely publicised in our newsletters, which have a huge circulation across the NHS and other organisations. The researchers themselves are looking for opportunities to place articles in newspapers and journals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we are also funding a conference to be held on 26th November which is being organised by the researchers and at which the noble Lord will give, I have no doubt, an arresting keynote speech. The aim of the conference is to give people working in the field the opportunity to share experiences and debate lessons learnt from community well-being activities. It will be an excellent opportunity to harness the growing interest and to apply it to today's circumstances.
Finally, on the subject of follow-up to the research project, on 22nd November, at the invitation of the noble Lord who is chairman of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, I am to take part in the national forum on the theme Co-operating for Health. This, I hope, will provide me with an excellent opportunity to introduce to a wider audience this important subject.
The thrust of the research highlights the fact that community well-being activities and the Government's Health of the Nation strategy are not in conflict, or even distinct from each other—far from it. To a great extent, the Health of the Nation strategy is supportive of and in tune with the growing interest in these innovative approaches.
Like the pioneers of the Peckham experiment, the Health of the Nation aims to prevent ill health and promote good health. The World Health Organisation has described it as a model for other countries to follow. Led by a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Lord President of the Council, the success of the strategy depends not only on leadership from the top but on the commitment and involvement of anyone who can have a positive effect on health.
One of the key themes in the Health of the Nation and one which is particularly relevant to the principles underlying the pioneer health centre is that of partnerships or alliances. Alliances are based on the age old principle that organisations and groups working together can achieve so much more than by working in isolation. Many of the projects quoted in the research report are based on health alliances and a number of them have had their excellence recognised through the national alliance awards scheme.
The concept of joint working is not easy for it demands respect for the values, views and traditions of others. However, when knowledge and resources are pooled, health alliances are a highly effective means of tackling specific problems. They can be especially effective when they work within a defined geographical area—in cities, neighbourhoods, schools, places of work and so on. They can also help target the difficult to reach groups which have been highlighted in tonight's debate and which include some of those most at risk such as elderly people or those whose lifestyles are problematical or those who have no wish to contact
1254
traditional health and social services. Again, there are parallels with the Peckham experiment which focused on a community with many material disadvantages and placed great emphasis on involving people of all ages.
The research demonstrates that there is ample opportunity within the Health of the Nation strategy to build on the growing interest in community well-being activities. At the same time we need to recognise that measures to improve health in the 1990s and beyond may not look quite the same as what was felt to be the answer in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. But there are common threads between then and now. They include the need actively to involve individuals and communities in approaches to improve health and a belief that the promotion of good health is not the sole preserve of health professionals.
Your Lordships will be aware that this afternoon the National Health Service Primary Care Bill was given its First Reading in your Lordships' House. This piece of legislation is designed to give members of the primary health care team the opportunity to work in new ways if they so wish. We recognise that the quality of service for some groups of people is not always of the best and that the rewards and incentives of a single national contract can inhibit doctors and dentists in their wish to introduce new and flexible services.
The Bill, if enacted, will allow new approaches to general practice to be piloted and evaluated. It is intended to encourage local people to develop and put forward their own ideas for improving services.
Finally, while supporting and encouraging local activities on the lines of those outlined in the research report, we need also to have a broader vision still. The Health of the Nation strategy calls upon us to work together with all those who have an impact on health. We have worked with industry and major employers to develop a strategy for improving health in the workplace. We are working with food producers, manufacturers, retailers and caterers to help promote healthy and enjoyable eating. Clothing manufacturers are interested in producing clothes which help protect against the sun. A national cycling strategy can help reduce the volume of motor traffic and increase peoples' level of physical activity. We are consulting widely on the introduction of a sixth key area in our Health of the Nation strategy, focusing on the environment.
So while we recognise the importance of local imagination, determination, motivation and the ability to improve health, we also recognise that government too have a role to play. As Sir George Young once said:
"For many of today's medical problems, the answer may not be cure by incision at the operating table - but prevention by decision at the Cabinet table".
I would add to that, not only at the Cabinet table but also the dining table, for health cannot be divorced from the rest of life. It is part and parcel of it, as the Peckham Experiment all those years ago showed us so clearly.
House adjourned at nine minutes before seven o'clock.

  Crown Servants in Overseas Posts: Eligibility
  Crown Servants in Overseas Posts: Eligibility
  NATO Enlargement: Financial Criteria
  NATO Enlargement: Financial Criteria
  Turkey and NATO Enlargement
  Turkey and NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement: Cost Estimates
  NATO Enlargement: Cost Estimates
  EU/Seychelles Fisheries Agreement
  EU/Seychelles Fisheries Agreement
  Potato Industry Development Council
  Potato Industry Development Council
  Surplus Food Scheme
  Surplus Food Scheme
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Iran: CBI Conference
  Iran: CBI Conference
  "Access to Justice": Response to Lord Woolf' s Recommendations
  "Access to Justice": Response to Lord Woolf' s Recommendations
  Creagan Bridge
  Creagan Bridge
  European Court of Justice: Role in EU Third Pillar Conventions
  European Court of Justice: Role in EU Third Pillar Conventions
  Escaped Prisoners: Tabular Information
  Escaped Prisoners: Tabular Information