Lords Sitting of 28 February 1997

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

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment regulations, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the Legal Aid (Functions) Order, which follows. Both draft instruments were laid before the House on 30th January this year. The first instrument includes four amendments to the scope of the legal advice and assistance scheme. The draft functions order provides for the Legal Aid Board to be able to assess claims for costs in civil cases, and to assess the financial means of applicants for legal aid.
The first of the four amendments to the advice and assistance scheme would revoke the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. These regulations, which were debated in this House on 20th July 1995, dealt with a proposed change of procedure in the magistrates' courts. Section 44 of and Schedule 4(2) to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provided for the abolition of the committals for trial procedure and its replacement with transfer for trial. The regulations we are seeking to revoke would have put transfer for trial on the same footing in relation to legal aid as committal for trial had been in the past. However, neither the relevant provisions of the Act nor the legal aid regulations were brought into force. It is important that the statute book is not cluttered with legislation which is not used. Accordingly, we seek the House's agreement to the revocation of this provision.
The other three amendments provide for Assistance by Way of Representation, or ABWOR, to be extended; first, to persons at risk of imprisonment for failure to obey a court order; secondly, to prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure who appear before the Parole Board; and, thirdly, to persons in relation to whom a removal order is sought under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
The first of these extensions is designed to address the points raised by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in the case of Benham v. the United Kingdom. Mr. Benham was committed to prison by Poole magistrates for non-payment of his community charge. The court held that there had been a violation of Articles 6(1) and 6(3)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that legally aided representation should have been made available to Mr. Benham.
1410
Although the court's judgment in the Benham case dealt only with a failure to pay the community charge, it is the Government's view that any proceedings for failure to obey a court order, where imprisonment is the ultimate sanction, are affected by the judgment.
Although the Government are concerned to meet their international obligations in these matters, we are equally anxious that blanket legal aid coverage should not be provided to address circumstances which arise in only relatively few cases. Accordingly, this amendment would provide for publicly funded representation to be available only for defendants in enforcement hearings where there was a real risk of imprisonment. To depart from this view would inevitably result in further pressure on the legal aid budget. The aim, therefore, must be to target legal aid representation on those most in need.
To do so, we propose to allow such defendants to be represented by a court duty solicitor, and where there is no duty solicitor available, or the case is complex, to be able to apply to the Legal Aid Board for ABWOR. We also intend to issue guidance to the courts on what administrative arrangements might be appropriate for such cases. Accordingly, paragraph 3(2) of the draft instrument would amend Regulation 7(4) of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 to extend ABWOR to cover enforcement hearings resulting from a defendant's failure to obey a court order where the failure is likely to lead to him being at risk of imprisonment. A further instrument—not requiring affirmative resolution—will extend the magistrates' court duty solicitor scheme to civil cases.
I turn now to the second extension of ABWOR, set out in paragraph 4 of this instrument. This article would provide for prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure to be represented at Parole Board hearings relating to a review of their case. On 23rd July 1996, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs answered a Written Question from the honourable Member for Finchley about procedural changes relating to prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Such prisoners who have served a period adequate to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence have their cases reviewed by the Parole Board, although the responsibility for their release rests with the Secretary of State. As an interim measure, the administrative arrangements for the review and release of prisoners were changed with effect from 1st August 1996. These arrangements include allowing such prisoners to have legal representation and an oral hearing before the Parole Board. The interim arrangements announced by the Secretary of State will be made permanent in the Crime (Sentences) Bill which is currently before the House.
The third proposed extension of ABWOR relates to people who are the subject of a removal order under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 47 provides for the removal to suitable premises of people who for any of a variety of reasons are in need of care and attention. The application for removal can be made in the interests of the person whose removal is sought or to prevent serious nuisance or injury to the health of other people. The order to remove a person may be made for a period not exceeding three months

1411
in the first instance, and may be extended by the court. The result of this type of application may result in the individual concerned losing his liberty. Respondents to a Section 47 application are likely to be particularly vulnerable members of society, and are unlikely to be able to fully prepare a case or represent themselves before magistrates.
I turn now to the second instrument. This contains the draft functions order which would confer two functions on the Legal Aid Board. The first of these, set out in Article 3 of the draft order, is to correct an error in the current law. The Legal Aid Act 1988 specifically prohibits the board from performing certain functions, unless the Lord Chancellor directs by order, and then only to the extent set out in the order. Assessing claims for costs in civil cases is one of the functions which requires such an order.
The function of assessing costs was carried out by the Law Society prior to its functions relating to legal aid being transferred to the Legal Aid Board under the terms of the Legal Aid Act 1988. However, due to an oversight, no functions order was made to allow the board to carry on this function. Of course, the board has assessed costs since 1989 and the cost limits which apply to assessment by the board are set out in regulations. The absence of a functions order to enable the board to undertake this function was discovered only relatively recently and we have brought forward this draft order as early as it was practicable to do so. No one has been disadvantaged as a result of this error.
A second function which requires an order by the Lord Chancellor is the determination of the financial resources of persons for the purposes of the Act. This is the purpose of Article 4 of the draft order. At present, the assessment of means in civil cases is undertaken by the Legal Aid Assessment Office—a unit within the Benefits Agency. In criminal cases, means assessment is undertaken by the court to which the application for legal aid is made.
From 1st April this year, responsibility for means assessment in civil cases will transfer from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board. The aim of this transfer of functions is to create a more integrated and efficient service relating to the grant of legal aid in civil cases. The Legal Aid Assessment Office currently employs approximately 280 staff at a single site in Preston, but the intention is that during the year to 1st April 1998 the means assessment process will be assimilated within the Legal Aid Board's 13 area offices. Benefits Agency staff will be reabsorbed by the Benefits Agency during this process.
Although the Legal Aid White Paper, Striking the Balance, proposes that the assessment of means in criminal cases should also transfer, ultimately, from the courts to the Legal Aid Board, that is unlikely to take place for two to three years. It is important that civil means assessment is properly bedded into place before the board's attention turns to criminal matters. However, when the work of the Legal Aid Assessment Office transfers to the board, it will include the Special Investigations Unit which was set up in 1996 to investigate cases in which applicants' means are
1412
complex. This was part of our strategy for combating the grant of legal aid to apparently wealthy applicants. At present, the Special Investigations Unit deals only with civil cases. However, when the board has properly assimilated civil means assessment, we intend that the unit's remit should be extended to cover criminal cases.
Although the main purpose of this functions order is to enable the transfer of civil means assessment from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board to go ahead, it would also allow the unit to investigate criminal cases. Realistically, this is unlikely to take place before civil means assessment has been properly assimilated, in 1998.
The draft regulation amendments about which I spoke first will enable Britain to meet its international obligations in relation to defendants facing imprisonment, and prisoners detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. They will also provide for representation to be provided to vulnerable people whom the authorities seek to have removed to suitable premises. As such, I commend this instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am pleased to be the first Labour spokesman on this bright and beautiful morning. We support both instruments. In particular, we welcome the three extensions of ABWOR. I agree with the Government's interpretation of the Benham decision. In principle it must apply to a failure to obey any court order where there is a risk of imprisonment. It is not confined to its own facts—a failure to pay community charge.
We agree also with the other two extensions of ABWOR for the benefit of prisoners who appear before the Parole Board while detained at Her Majesty's pleasure and persons subject of a removal order under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948. ABWOR should plainly extend to the latter because they are often the most vulnerable in society who could lose their liberty as a result of the application for removal.
We also support the second instrument. It is right that means assessment in civil cases transfer from the Benefits Agency to the Legal Aid Board. I specifically welcome the confirmation given by the noble and learned Lord that this transfer will include the Special Investigations Unit. It investigates cases where the resources of applicants are obscure and complex. We must bear down hard on those whose life styles give the lie to the want of resources which they profess, whether the case is a civil or a criminal one.
The sooner the investigations unit is up and running within the board and able to investigate both classes of case, both civil and criminal, the better for the public purse. There are a number of things which can bring legal aid into public discredit, but none greater than the huge fees sometimes paid out for the benefit of those who can well afford to pay for their own lawyers. We therefore welcome both instruments.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for this support. We all know, of course, that sunny weather

1413
for some can change quite quickly into very dark and thunderous clouds. I am sure that the time between now and some other events may be quite sufficient for that purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Functions) Order 1997
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already explained this order and I have benefited from the support of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Therefore, I also commend this instrument to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed]—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1997
11.18 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this draft scheme I shall speak to the second scheme standing in my name on the Order Paper. These draft statutory instruments are presented in accordance with Section 2 of the Farm Land and Rural Development Act 1988. They were laid before the House on 12th February and approved by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 25th February. They apply in Great Britain only. Similar but separate arrangements operate in Northern Ireland.
I shall describe the background to the schemes. The farm woodland scheme was introduced in 1988 to counter growing agricultural surpluses and to encourage farmers to develop woodlands on land used for agriculture. The scheme offered payments to farmers over periods of up to 40 years to compensate for the agricultural income foregone when they planted trees on their land. The pilot scheme was reviewed after five years and its successor, the farm woodland premium scheme, was launched in 1992. The main changes introduced into the FWPS were increased payments over a shorter period and a reduction in the minimum eligible area. At the time we undertook to review the scheme and report to Parliament within five years.
The scheme is co-funded under EC Regulation 2080/92 on forestry measures in agriculture and we receive reimbursement of 50 per cent. of eligible expenditure from the CAP budget.
Both schemes have been successful with, to date, over 48,000 hectares approved for planting in the UK.
We conducted an economic and environmental evaluation of the scheme and sought views from the main farming, forestry and environmental interests. In light of the evaluations and views received, we conducted a detailed policy review of the scheme. A report was laid before Parliament on 24th July last year summarising proposed changes and shortly afterwards a detailed consultation paper was issued. That consultation paper was sent to farming, forestry and environmental interests and placed in the Library of the House.
Following that exercise, our final intentions were announced on 12th December last year and a list of the changes was placed in the Library of the House. The statutory instruments currently before your Lordships would enact those aspects of the proposed changes where legislative amendments are necessary.
Our review concluded that considerable public good derived from woodlands, most notably in the form of landscape and wildlife benefits. These benefits justify continued public support for the scheme.
The objectives of the scheme are being revised to stress the environmental reasons for the public subsidy. The new objectives are:
"To enhance the environment through the planting of farm woodlands, in particular to improve the landscape, provide new habitats and increase biodiversity. In doing this, land managers should be encouraged to realise the productive potential of woodland as a sustainable land use".
A number of detailed changes are being introduced by these statutory instruments. I would like to describe the most important of them.
First, we are seeking to increase payment rates, except on unimproved land where we consider the existing rates adequate. We are also making some changes to the payment structure. This is because the evaluations showed that the agricultural income foregone from planting trees was substantially higher on arable land than on grassland. Therefore, we are introducing a separate, higher rate that will apply to plantings on arable land, defined as land eligible for the arable area payments scheme. The new rates and payment structure will apply to both new and existing participants. Outside the less favoured areas, the new rate will be £300 per hectare for plantings on arable land and £260 per hectare for plantings on improved permanent grassland. It is my view that, bearing in mind the benefits many farmers and their successors will derive from woodland on their land, this will be an attractive proposition for many.
Secondly, we are removing the requirement for participants, once accepted into the scheme, to continue to run an agricultural business. I see this as an important development that will make the scheme considerably more attractive to farmers who are contemplating retirement from active agriculture. The change will also apply to existing participants.
Farmers will still have to be running an agricultural business to be accepted into the scheme, but we are widening eligibility for the scheme by broadening the definition of an agricultural business to include arrangements, such as grazing licences, where landowners retain some control over the management of the land.
We are also introducing more flexibility into the eligibility requirements by removing the current rule limiting applications to 50 per cent. of the agricultural area of a holding. However, this is a cash-limited scheme and we wish to see a wide range of plantings of varying nature and with different objectives. It would therefore not be desirable if the bulk of the funds went to a small number of businesses, to the exclusion of others. With this in mind, we are introducing a maximum area limit of 200 hectares on the area any one business can receive FWPS payments on. The limit will only apply to plantings ensuing from applications received on or after 1st April 1997.
On the administrative front, we want to make the scheme easier for farmers to apply for. The revised scheme will therefore be more closely integrated with the woodland grant scheme run by the Forestry Commission, with joint application and acceptance procedures. There will effectively be a one-stop shop for the farmer interested in establishing a woodland.
In summary, the intention of these changes is to make the FWPS more attractive and thereby help increase the amount of woodland on agricultural land around our towns and throughout our countryside, not only to our benefit but to the benefit of future generations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am speaking to this statutory instrument in the absence of my noble friend Lord Carter. I am most grateful to the Minister for his rather long explanation of this complicated scheme. I thank also the Country Landowners' Association for the brief that it has forwarded to me.
I understand that the problem with the old scheme was that farmers were not willing to enter it because of the practical problems encountered when trying to do so. However, from what the Minister said, it looks as though individual farmers or landowners will still need more explanations if they are to be attracted into the scheme.
My general impression from the briefings I have been given is that provided that no hidden snags arise, as happened with the earlier scheme, this scheme is in general acceptable and will help to achieve increased plantings of trees on what was previously farm land or reclaimed land. Therefore, on behalf of this side of the House, I give the scheme a general welcome and only hope that this time we have got it absolutely right.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. We too give a general welcome to the statutory instrument, but we have one or two queries.
For some years there has been concern about the planting of trees on hard-won improved land. The struggles to improve that land and to bring it into agricultural use have sometimes gone on for more
1416
than 100 years. Such land is to be found in Moray and Nairn, Kintyre, and Mull where farm units are already being lost to woodland. It is feared that the payment of the premium is encouraging landowners to plant trees and that that will exacerbate the problem. I know that the Minister has corresponded with my honourable friends in another place Sir Russell Johnston and Mrs. Ray Michie about the anxiety expressed by Mr. Alistair Maclennan, president of the Moray and Nairn area executive of the NFU of Scotland.
We generally welcome the SI but remain concerned that the more remote places which are already vulnerable will be at even greater risk from rural depopulation if more is not done to protect them. That is in addition to what I think is the probable need for more food and more food security for this country in future.
It is significant that the Cairngorm Partnership, which represents the various interests trying to reach a consensus about the management of the fragile environment of the Cairngorms, has mentioned a presumption against the loss of better land to other land uses, including most woodland planting, in its draft management strategy. It reinforces the concerns of the local NFU that scarce improved land would be lost to woodland planting undertaken by landowners and thus result in further depopulation if it is not specifically safeguarded. Our concern is that the SI does not in itself give adequate protection for areas such as that. Can the Minister give an assurance that further thought will be given to strengthening the guidelines relating to paragraph 6? Otherwise we support the Motion.
11.30 a.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that this new scheme has received from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I should like to correct one general impression that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may have given. He suggested that the existing farm woodland premium scheme was somehow disabled, limping along and suffering from various chronic problems. That is not so. It has been a very successful scheme. But, like all schemes, over a five-year period it is vital to review progress as circumstances evolve to deliver improvements wherever possible. The improvements we have identified include the removal of some restrictions that were not delivering benefits, the improvement of rates to deliver greater benefits, and the improvement of targeting.
The response to the scheme to date by farmers across the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, has been very positive. We are planting across the United Kingdom about 70 million new trees per annum. Over the past 17 or 18 years we have planted over a third of a million hectares across the United Kingdom. We are re-afforesting this country at a considerable rate with an eye to planting the right trees in the right places rather than simply blanket the landscape with trees.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that efforts are made to inform farmers of the possibilities under the farm woodland premium scheme. We will

1417
be promoting the scheme through an introductory guide that is in preparation at the moment. Nevertheless, advice remains available to farmers through ADAS, the Scottish agricultural colleges, the agriculture departments and the Forestry Authority. While awaiting the publication of the introductory guide we will be reprinting the existing short practical guide with amendments to take into account proposed changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the concerns that had been expressed by his honourable colleagues in another place about the loss of good quality agricultural land in marginal areas. We fully understand that concern. I have sought to reassure his honourable friends in correspondence. We understand the concerns and have sought to ensure that they are groundless. The operation of the farm woodland premium scheme area limits will avoid the unlimited conversion of land that is valuable for other land uses while still providing reasonable further opportunities for farmers to plant woodlands under the scheme.
It is essential that farmers themselves decide within the limits whether to apply for entry to the scheme, how much land should be entered and which parts of farms should be converted into woodlands. Nevertheless, the Forestry Authority's procedures for consultation, for example with the agriculture, environment and fisheries department of the Scottish Office, on such scheme applications provide an opportunity for consideration of the effects of the proposals on the agricultural structure of the locality. In addition, in the course of wider consultations on forestry proposals, consideration is given to the balance between forestry and other land uses, including agricultural and environmental interests. These matters are also often reflected in indicative forestry strategies that have been prepared by local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is also aware that there is a 40-hectare limit on FWPS applications on unimproved land.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about strengthening paragraph 6 which deals with the restriction on resumption of land for entry into the farm woodland premium scheme. The scheme rules already prevent this from occurring. I hope that the noble Lord can be satisfied on that point. Landlords cannot resume land from tenants in order that that land can go into the farm woodland premium scheme.
On the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the House accepts the scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland (Amendment) Scheme 1997
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) Order 1997
11.35 a.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order concerns an experimental scheme providing an incentive for drink-drive offenders to attend courses whose purpose is to persuade them not to re-offend. The incentive is that if they complete the course satisfactorily the court which referred them to it will reduce their period of disqualification from driving by up to 25 per cent. Only certain courts are involved in the experiment and able to make the referrals—a point I shall return to later—and the courses must be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport.
The effect of this order is very simple: the present powers for the experiment are due to lapse at the end of this year and the order will extend the duration of the experiment by two years until the end of 1999. Parliament will have a further opportunity before that date to decide whether to make the legislation permanent and remove the restrictions that apply to it while the experiment is under way.
Your Lordships may recall that the experimental powers were introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991. These empower courts to make orders referring drink-drive offenders to courses and to specify a reduced period of disqualification if the course is successfully completed. Referrals are made at the discretion of the court and can be made only if the offender is willing to be referred and to pay the course fee. At the end of the course the organiser must either issue a certificate of completion, which the offender sends to the court, or a notice of non-completion which can be appealed against. The Secretary of State may issue guidance to course organisers on the conduct of courses.
Even before the legislation came into force there had been some experimentation in rehabilitating drink-drive offenders, notably by the Probation Service, with courts making referrals under the terms of probation orders. Some of these date back to the 1980s. The North review of road traffic law which reported in 1988 recognised their value as a constructive means of reforming attitudes or behaviour which might be inconsistent with a person's safety as a driver. The members of that committee were particularly impressed with courses run by the Hampshire Probation Service which served as a model for many subsequent ones. The North review therefore recommended that the courses should be established first on an experimental basis and should be carefully monitored and evaluated as a necessary precaution before making the heavy investment in time, skills and money that would be necessary to have the courses established on a permanent basis.
The Transport Research Laboratory has been monitoring the effectiveness of the courses and has been issuing regular progress reports. The latest of these provides evidence that course attenders are considerably less likely to re-offend than those who have not attended courses.
The current experiment relates to England, Wales and Scotland. A Northern Ireland order approved last year provides for a similar experiment in the Province but this still has to be set up. In mainland Great Britain around 500 courses have so far been run involving more than 5,000 offenders and 23 approved course organisers.
The question must arise: if the experiment has been so successful up to now, why is it necessary to extend it? Why can we not simply progress to a permanent and nationwide scheme which can benefit all drink-drive offenders? The main reason is fairly technical. The experiment intended to monitor two similar groups of people, one of which had taken the courses and the other of which had not. However, this assumed that virtually everyone who had agreed in court to attend a course and had been served an order would turn up and do so. These people could then be matched fairly accurately to a "control" group from another court. However, there was a much higher than predicted drop-out rate—people who agreed to an order being served but never took the trouble to attend the course. I am not talking about people who started a course but did not complete it—they form a relatively small group—but about those who did not even give it a try.
The problem for the researchers is that they know very little about those "drop-outs", but it is quite likely that their characteristics are rather different from those of the people who did participate. This makes it more difficult to interpret the data about the value of the courses, since it suggests that those who attended were self-selecting to a greater extent than we anticipated. These difficulties are not insuperable, but they do mean that we need a greater degree of confidence in the data we have got, and the most straightforward way of getting that is to monitor the effect of the courses for a little longer. If we track all the offenders in the experimental and control groups for a full three years from the date of the offence, we shall do better than if we just look at the position reached in the middle of 1997. This means extending the experiment by a further two years.
But extending the period will provide further opportunities too. We hope to use this next phase to extend the geographical spread of courses by designating further court areas, thus making the courses available to a larger number of drink-drive offenders and allowing further providers of courses to enter the field. A number of the existing providers of courses have the capacity to serve additional courts or expand to nearby towns, and an interest in doing so. We are looking for further opportunities to attract new interest in providing courses.
The rehabilitation scheme I have described can play an important part in the Government's continuing efforts to reduce drinking and driving by preventing people from re-offending, whether they be first time or repeat offenders. Drinking and driving is one of the most avoidable causes of road deaths. Certainly, we have made great progress in the past 10 years in reducing road deaths involving driving over the legal limit. But
1420
still around one in six of all road deaths is drink-drive related, so there must be no let up in the Government's measures to combat this problem.
Bearing in mind this and the encouraging initial results that I have mentioned, I commend this order to your Lordships and hope that you will give it your full support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for that comprehensive introduction. Let me say immediately that we welcome the provision of courses and the experiment which has been described. We shall therefore welcome the order itself. However, as a survey researcher, perhaps I may be forgiven one or two comments on the research issues which the noble Earl has discussed.
It is clearly right that there should be an experimental as well as a control group for the research. I also accept that the number of drop-outs before the course has even started seriously affects the credibility of the research design. I have two questions about that. First, why are the courses made available only to those who agree in court at the time of the imposition of the ban? Would it not have been possible to have approached those who were already banned to ask them whether they would be interested in taking part in the courses, with the obvious benefit of a reduction in the period of disqualification? That could have increased the number of cases studied in the experiment, and made it possible to reach a conclusion earlier than was originally intended.
My second comment is less critical. I understand the need to continue the experimental period, and I welcome what the noble Earl said about the extension of the experimental programme into new court areas—either completely new areas or by extension from the existing experiment. We support the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I welcome the order to a good degree. I declare my interest as a deputy chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. Our group follows carefully the measures which have been taken by the Government. I congratulate the Government on what they have done recently to address the difficult problem of those who, in particular, re-offend in the drinking and driving area.
Perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said. The problem arises principally with repeat offenders. There has been a change in our culture towards drinking and driving. When I was a young man—I readily confess it—the attitude towards drinking and driving was much less stringent than it is now. Most young men and young women were at some stage, I am afraid, in charge of a vehicle when they were clearly not in a position to be so. Nowadays that is rare.
There is no doubt of the deterrent effect of police activity in stopping young drivers, in particular—it is not young drivers, I might add, who are generally the main offenders nowadays—to give them a sharp lesson which they will never forget. Over 15 or 20 years, that has had

1421
the effect of reducing the incidence of first-time drinking and driving offenders. If they are sensible, people nowadays—one hopes that young people are sensible—will ensure that they do not drive cars when they go to parties and that someone who has not been drinking does so. That is generally the pattern nowadays, and that is to be welcomed.
The problem of course arises with people who have a drinking problem. Most people drive cars nowadays. I am afraid that people with drinking problems drive cars. When I say "drinking problems" I do not mean people who are, in the accepted sense, addicts—that is, alcoholics—but people who may well end up that way and who are not easily persuaded that they should not drink and drive. It is those people whom one must target, and who will be effectively targeted by the Government's measures. It is those that we welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the problem of people who may not agree to take the training at the court stage. Of course someone who has a drink problem, as with any other person who has an addiction problem, is often in what is termed a state of denial. It is often only people who are known by their relatives, who can bring pressure upon them, who might accept the possibility of having this kind of training.
Even so, the courses may not be effective, in which case that must be identified during the course. That is why we should watch the results carefully. I am delighted that there is to be this extension, because we need more information in order to target the people who are most likely to be at risk themselves and ultimately a risk to other road users.
This is a very important development. I welcome it more than I welcome the idea of being more severe with random tests on the roads, and so forth, which have been called for in many quarters. I do not agree with that. One needs now to give road users who have decided not to drink and drive something of a pat on the back rather than to make life more difficult for them. One needs to target, as the Government are doing here, those who, if they do not have an alcoholism problem, have a drinking and driving problem which requires proper treatment. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl say that there is an indication that these courses are reducing the number of offences. We shall monitor the matter carefully. I am sure that my congratulations to the Government on this morning in particular are welcome. I hope that in many, many years' time, perhaps, we shall have the occasion to congratulate the noble Earl's party again on this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this short debate, but it is noticeable that both Front Bench speakers opposite, although I agree with every word they have said in support of the order, mentioned the likelihood that what my noble friend called the "drop-out rate"—in other words, the non-participation rate—will continue in the same way as it has heretofore. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made suggestions on curing the problem which are dependent on a supposition,
1422
but what gives the Government the confidence that the continued experiment will be more successful?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I wonder whether I am alone in thinking that the words "courses for drink-drive offenders" could be completely misinterpreted and should have been preceded by the word "rehabilitation"?
Nonetheless, I am delighted that the experimental' period is being extended. I am of the understanding that these courses have had some success in the West Country, have been adopted by at least one other police force and are under consideration by others which are looking at ways in which the legislation might possibly impinge upon the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995, funding for those unable to afford the course fee, and other matters, before making a decision. It should, of course, be recognised that what is successful in one part of the country will not necessarily be successful in another due to different local conditions. I am pleased that the Transport Research Laboratory is monitoring the results of the courses, as mentioned by the noble Earl, and I approve of the order.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support of the order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised a point concerning the extension of the scheme to those part way through a ban. I understand that it is a direction of the courts that they enter into the scheme in the first place. The legislation does not allow people already disqualified to take the course. It is important that the court decides what the period of disqualification shall be, whether or not the course is taken.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the improvement in relation to re-offending. That is happening gradually. Furthermore, the drop-out rate is falling too.
In answer to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, research will be completed in 1999 and the final report will then be published. However, we are already obtaining useful feedback. The latest evaluation shows that course attenders are considerably less likely to re-offend than those who have not attended the courses. Thirty months after sentencing, those who had attended courses were three times less likely to have re-offended than the "control group". Particularly encouraging results were achieved with offenders in the high-risk offender category who, because of the seriousness of their offences or repeat offences, are thought to present a particular danger to road safety.
After attending courses they were no more likely to re-offend than the low-level offenders who had attended. This is an important finding. There was some doubt about how suitable the courses would be for the high-risk offenders. There is also evidence from questionnaires completed by people who had attended the courses that the courses had helped to improve the offenders' knowledge of alcohol and its effects and of just how few drinks it takes in order for them to be over the legal drink-drive limit.
I hope that that and the other points that I have made have adequately demonstrated the value of continuing with this experiment. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police (Property) Bill
11.54 a.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill comes about as a result of an issue which came to light during debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994 in another place.
I think it true to say that the Bill has modest objectives. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a worthwhile measure, being designed to make better use of public funds.
The main purpose of the Bill is to allow the police to retain particular items of property, instead of having to dispose of them, where the items are of such specific use that it would be more efficient to allow them to be retained for use in the police service.
The Bill extends to all parts of the United Kingdom. Whereas the legislative position is very similar for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is different for Scotland. I shall therefore speak separately about the Bill's provision relating to Scotland.
First, however, I shall speak about the position in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, where the disposal of unclaimed or forfeited property in the possession of the police is governed by the Police (Property) Act 1897 and regulations made under this Act. At the moment, it is a requirement that the property be either sold or destroyed and the proceeds from all sales paid into a Police Property Fund, which is controlled by the police authority. Payments are made from the fund for charitable purposes.
There have been occasions where costly items of property, such as computer systems, have had to be sold at auction for a substantially reduced amount, when it would have provided far greater value for money to allow the police to retain the item for their own use.
As I have explained, the purpose of this Bill is to change the legislation to make it possible, on an exceptional basis, for items of unclaimed or forfeited property to be retained for use by the police. The decision would not be made by the police, but would remain with the police authority, which controls the Police Property Fund.
The number of occasions when it will make economic sense to do this will be very small and the totality of the sums involved will not be significant in terms of total police budgets. Nor will the income of charities be affected to any noticeable extent.
The Bill makes analogous changes in Northern Ireland where, as I have explained, the law is similar to that in England and Wales. The position is different in Scotland, where the courts already have the power to vest forfeited property in the police.
I would like to give a brief description of the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 amends the Police (Property) Act 1897 to allow regulations made under the Act to provide that the police authority may decide that property is to be retained. Clause 2 makes consequential changes to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973 to allow regulations to provide for the retention of forfeited
1424
property. Clause 3 makes equivalent changes to the law on forfeiture in Northern Ireland to those made by Clause 2. Clause 4 makes two minor tidying amendments to the Police (Property) Act 1897 in respect of Northern Ireland. Clause 5 is also a tidying amendment which repeals a provision which is inconsistent with the Police (Property) Act 1897. I shall come to Clause 6, but Clause 7 provides the Short Title, commencement provisions and scope of each clause of the Bill.
Clause 6 of the Bill relates to Scotland. It makes provision for a new Part VIIA in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to enable the police in Scotland either to dispose of or to retain certain property which is at present excluded from Parts VI and VII of that Act, which respectively relate to lost and abandoned property and to property in the possession of persons taken into police custody.
Under the current terms of the 1982 Act, the police in Scotland may already dispose of any lost or abandoned property to which Part VI applies. For Scotland, therefore, the Bill will extend the provisions of the 1982 Act to allow the police to retain or to dispose of a new class of property.
This new class of property is purely that which has come into the possession of the police in connection with the investigation of a suspected offence, having been found in possession of a person taken into custody, which is reasonably suspected to be in the unlawful possession of that person, or is property which the prosecutor has determined is no longer required as a production in criminal proceedings, or for any other purpose relating to such proceedings.
I suggest that this is a commonsense and practical measure and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
11.59 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for his introduction of this valuable little Bill. I hope that he will not mind my saying that it is a little Bill. It performs the function of a 100-year review of the 1897 Act. Perhaps we ought to adopt that procedure as a general custom. Why should we not review all legislation after 100 years instead of, as this Government appear to do, after 100 months at the most, and sometimes only 12 or 18 months.
Although it did not appear in the noble Viscount's speech, I thought there was to be some change also in the procedures whereby the police dispose of property when they wish to do so. The 1897 Act provided for auction and I understood that that had been changed by subsequent legislation. However, I may be wrong, and it is not essential to the Bill.
The Government will recall that in the consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994, in Standing Committee B in another place, the Labour Party proposed a similar change to the Bill in the form of an amendment. The Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Maclean, said that it was

1425
inappropriate for it to be included in the legislation then under consideration and that it would have to be put forward in the form of a separate Bill. That is what this Bill achieves and to that extent it is welcomed.
I have only one sour point to make and I shall have to make it more than once today. This is what my honourable friend Dennis Skinner called synthetic Private Member's legislation. Government Back-Benchers who win the ballot for a Private Member's Bill are sent Bills which are already prepared by government departments—in this case the Home Office—and adopt them as Private Member's Bills. That is a distortion of what Private Member's Bills should be for. They should be for genuinely new legislative proposals. If the Government have Bills they should produce them in their own time rather than use the allocation, already severely limited, for Private Member's Bills in the Commons. With that proviso, I welcome the Bill.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I have only one point with which I am sure the Minister will deal. It is entirely sensible for the decision to be made by the police authority rather than the police themselves. That is an entirely desirable position. But, of course, London does not have a police authority, although it is hoped that it soon will have. That being so, what is the position in relation to London?
12.3 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bridgeman on introducing the Bill today and I am grateful for the support that it has received. Although the Bill appears somewhat complicated, due to its technical nature, its main purpose is clear: to enable the police to deal more efficiently with items of unclaimed or forfeited property. I am sure that that is something we could all support. Indeed, the Bill has received cross-party support so far and I hope to see that continue.
As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, the issue came to attention in 1994 when an amendment was tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in another place. The amendment sought to enable the police to apply to the courts for the use of computer equipment forfeited by pornographers.
Although the amendment was rejected because it was defective the Government were sympathetic to the underlying aim of the amendment. Indeed the Government said at that time that if it were deemed desirable for the police to make use of forfeited property, the necessary provision should be made by amendment to the Police (Property) Act 1897 and regulations issued under it. I am pleased to see that that is happening with this Bill.
The Government indicated their support for such a measure in the White Paper Protecting the Public, issued in March 1996. By enabling the matter to be taken forward in this Bill my noble friend is seeing that action is taken sooner than would otherwise be possible. I am grateful to him for that.
1426
The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and of Northern Ireland has been consulted and has confirmed that it would find it useful occasionally to be able to retain particular items of property. Likewise, the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland has welcomed the proposed measures. As was mentioned by my noble friend, the legislative position in Scotland differs to that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but it makes sense to allow the same sort of arrangements for dealing with property to be available in Scotland. The opportunity is taken in the Bill to make some minor tidying amendments to the legislation for Northern Ireland, and I agree that it is appropriate to do that.
I believe that the Bill's provisions reflect the intention that the option of retaining property is to be exercised on an exceptional rather than a general basis. The police authority, which has responsibility for managing the Police Property Act Fund, will need to satisfy itself that the property has remained in the possession of the police for a year (or for six months in the case of forfeited property); that the police are empowered to sell the property; and that the property can be used for police purposes. The police authority will need to make a determination that a particular item of property is to be retained. Regulations will provide for all such determinations by the police authority to be published. Those are features to reassure anyone who may be concerned that police priorities may become distorted.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned the situation relating to London. The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police takes the place of the police authority in London.
It will be necessary to ensure that decisions to retain property can be defended on value for money grounds. New regulations will be made and a Home Office circular will be issued explaining the circumstances in which property can be retained rather than sold.
As noble Lords may be aware, the proceeds of property disposed of by the police go to charitable purposes. Lest there be any concern that the Bill will have an adverse effect on charities let me give an assurance that this will not be the case. Given that only particular items of property that are likely to fetch a low price at auction should be affected, the impact of the Bill on charities should not be significant.
Some may wonder about the sort of items of property that might be retained for use by the police. It think it would be difficult to be precise. Computer equipment that has been forfeited is perhaps the most obvious example. That is because, for the moment at least, there is not a very effective second-hand market for computer equipment. Items of jewellery that have come into the hands of the police as stolen property and which have remained unclaimed by the owner would be examples of property that could not be retained.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked by that. What about chief constables' wives?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I greatly enjoy the repartee with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am sure that he is not being serious.

1427
Apart from the fact that jewellery would fetch a reasonable price at auction, it could not be used for police purposes and so would be ruled out. Property consisting of money is also ruled out. Given that the situation with second-hand markets can change, I do not believe it would be sensible for the Bill to define too closely the type of property that might be retained. I believe it is best left to the combined good judgment of the police and the police authority. That is what the Bill will do, and I agree.
I welcome the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he respond to the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made about synthetic Private Member's Bills? The problem is not new; nor has it been confined to governments of one party only. If the noble Earl is not in the position to make a pronouncement, will he bring the matter to the notice of the business managers?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has mentioned that in the past. I shall of course bring his comments to the attention of the business managers.
12.8 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate and for the broad support that the Bill has received. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in relation to auction, as I understand it there is not merely an option to offer the property referred to at auction; there is an obligation to do so. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Building Societies (Distributions) Bill
12.9 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This modest, genuine Private Member's Bill is designed to correct a signal unfairness which denies entitlement to shares or cash bonuses to particular individuals when building societies abandon neutral status to revert to public companies.
I am afraid that the requirements of parliamentary drafting demand more than five pages and nearly 250 lines of legislation to achieve that objective by amendment of the Building Societies Act 1986.
The injustice being addressed applies to many thousands of building society customers who, for reasons of age, sickness, disability, handicap or other good reasons, are not the first named member on their building society account, that first named position being occupied by their trustee. Current practice generally
1428
means that only the first named can qualify for bonus cash or shares and, moreover, can only fully qualify once irrespective of the number of accounts held.
If, as often happens, the matron of a nursing home or the manager of an old people's home is looking after and, as trustee, is the first named on the building society accounts of, say, 20 or 30 of their patients or residents, then, under existing legislation, those patients or residents would not be entitled to share in the benefits when their building society converts. Put in more formal language, this Bill will require building societies to make more than one distribution, of cash or bonus shares, to members who have more than one account where the other account is held by the member on trust for another person where it can be shown that it is not reasonably practical for that other person to hold the account.
I should make it clear that building societies are able under existing legislation to do of their own volition what this Bill will require them to do; in other words, the Bill would not force societies to do anything which they cannot do at present, if they so decide. The Bill will not place unreasonable administrative burdens on the societies who will be affected in the future. Potential beneficiaries will be required to make claims by way of statutory declarations (before a JP, a notary or a solicitor) and, as your Lordships know, making a false statutory declaration is perjury and a criminal offence. The onus for making a claim therefore rests with the individuals concerned and the building society is not responsible for searching out such individuals by hunting through its records.
As I explained earlier, complicated drafting has been required to achieve the relatively simple objectives of this legislation, and perhaps it would be unduly burdensome on your Lordships for me to read out the explanatory notes that I have been given about each detailed subsection of the Bill. I have, however, provided a copy of these explanatory notes to those noble Lords who indicated their intention to speak in this short debate and I hope that that will have been of assistance. I have also placed a copy of the notes in the Library.
As noble Lords know, the Halifax Building Society decided to convert earlier this week and there has been some press comment and speculation about whether the provisions of this Bill will, or should, apply. I must quickly extinguish any false hopes that the Bill will of itself redress the very real sense of grievance felt by those Halifax customers who are disadvantaged by current practice. Whatever the merits of their claims—and, indeed, of similar claims from members of other converting societies—I fear that practical political realities have ensured that this Bill is very narrowly focused. It does not have retrospective effect on societies—for example, the Alliance and Leicester, the Halifax, the Northern Rock and the Woolwich—which announced their plans some time ago. Retrospection would impose considerable costs and difficulties on those societies and could disadvantage by delay the majority of their members who are looking forward to their bonuses later this year. The Bill will only apply to societies who make their announcements after

1429
22nd January 1997 and that trigger date is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. As I understand it, no society has made such an announcement since 22nd January, so it will only apply to those societies which make announcements in the future.
I should explain that this Bill was introduced by my honourable friend, Douglas French, the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, under the Ten Minute Rule in another place on 22nd January of this year. As a result of widespread consultation and most careful drafting, it completed all its subsequent stages without discussion or debate—in effect, on the nod—on Friday, 14th February and came to this House on Monday, 17th February for its first reading. Perhaps I may pay tribute to the Treasury Minister, Mrs. Angela Knight and her officials, to the Opposition spokesmen concerned in another place, to the Building Societies Commission, the Consumers' Association and, not least, to Lesley Furlonger for her skilled drafting of this Bill.
I must also make it abundantly clear that this Bill, which is supported by leading charities like MENCAP, SENSE and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, can only reach the statute book in the current Session of Parliament in its unamended form. It does not deal with every difficulty or anomaly but if the smallest or the most sensible and reasonable amendment is made, which requires the Bill to go back to another place, it will not survive as I understand there will be no parliamentary time available for further consideration in another place. Either the Bill is agreed precisely in its present form by your Lordships' House, as I hope it will be, and as a result goes directly for Royal Assent, or it will fall due to lack of parliamentary time and many deserving people who stand to gain from its modest but well worthwhile provisions will be bitterly disappointed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
12.16 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. There is indeed quite a history behind Private Members' Bills on building societies and in particular about second named account holders. I believe that it was about a year and a half ago that two similar Bills were launched, one by Douglas French MP in another place and one by myself in this Chamber. As is only proper, I deferred to his Bill, withdrew mine and supported his. That Bill established certain rights for second named account holders, especially widows. However, it was conceded at the time that that Bill inevitably left a number of other gaps. I am happy to say that one of them is being filled by the Bill now before us.
Some time ago I discussed the whole principle with someone from a building society who said that it had been put to their lawyers who concluded that the problem was too difficult to solve; and, indeed, they had been unable to bring anything forward in that respect. Therefore, I am even more pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, and his colleague in another place, Douglas French, have managed to find a way to produce a Bill that seems to meet a particular and specific need.
1430
I am bound to say that I found the Bill rather difficult to understand when I read through it. Therefore, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for sending me some explanatory notes. All became clear to me after reading those notes but, without them, it is a particularly difficult Bill to understand. I appreciate that it has to be complex because its provisions are quite difficult in legal terms to ensure that the legislation achieves its stated objectives.
One of the difficulties that has faced building societies up to now is that they have not known enough about the identity or the responsibilities of first named account holders. In my discussions with building societies, those concerned have said to me that, in future, they will need to find a different way of registering first named account holders so that they can distinguish between those who are trustees, wives, husbands or whatever. Had that been the case, I suspect that the Bill would in some respects have been much simpler. However, as I said, it is complicated because of the need to find a way in which people can declare what their position is as first named account holders and what their responsibilities are for other names on the list. In future, I hope that building societies will approach the matter somewhat differently so as to facilitate the process. Having said that, they will be helped significantly by the Bill.
I believe that building societies have been a little amiss in allowing the situation to develop. When I say "situation", I have in mind all the anxieties facing different categories of second named account holders. The whole process has led to a sense of unfairness. We have often talked about people who are very poor and for whom a small distribution of money could make a substantial difference. Having, so to speak, complied with all the requirements, people feel a sense of unfairness when they have been deprived of the money because of what seems to them to be a mere technicality. That is why there has been a need for this legislation. I welcome this Bill. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, said; namely, if it is amended, it will fall simply because there is no time between now and an election to get it through. In that spirit we shall look at the Bill in the hope of not needing to amend it as opposed to looking for amendments.
However, I am irritated by one other matter. This Bill is a Private Member's Bill; the previous Bill was a Private Member's Bill. Yet in a sense I should have thought it was up to the Government to introduce legislation on building societies. That was the thrust of some of the debates that took place on earlier Bills. The Government have a responsibility and because they have not exercised that responsibility, private Members have stepped in.
I was irritated to note that at 11 o'clock this morning a Building Societies Bill was introduced in another place. The only reason I knew about that was because I read articles in today's papers indicating that a Bill was to be introduced today. One of the articles suggested that the Bill would be passed today. I think there was some confusion in that newspaper between

1431
the new Bill and the Bill we are discussing. I managed to get hold of a copy of that Bill when the embargo was lifted at 11 o'clock this morning.
I am less irritated about that than about the late arrival of a Bill which many of us had hoped would be on the scene much earlier and which could have dealt with the matter in the Bill we are now discussing and other matters which still need some tidying up in the area of second-named account holders. It is somewhat irritating to note that the Government have not dealt with any of those matters; they have dealt with different matters. After all the discussion that has taken place and the hints from government Ministers that a Bill would be available before too long—that was said a year and a half ago—many of us thought that was a commitment, as it were, on the part of the Government to introduce a Bill. Now we have this other Bill today I have mentioned which I do not see getting through before an election, so it is simply a marker—
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): It might get through!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister suggests it might get through before an election. However, it is a pretty hefty Bill to get through before an election; it has 109 pages. I am sure it is a worthwhile measure, although I have not had time to examine it. Perhaps I should not say I am sure it is a worthwhile measure; I hope it is a worthwhile measure. However, since I picked it up from the Printed Paper Office I have not had time to look at it. As I said, I am somewhat irritated that the Government have not done what they should have done.
Having said that, I welcome this Bill. It will deal with the sense of unfairness that a small number of second and lower-named account holders quite properly feel. It will put that matter right and I wish it a quick passage through this House.
12.22 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I appear to be speaking in the gap. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will sum up the debate when he speaks and therefore this is the only moment when I can speak in the debate. I apologise for not giving notice, but I only arrived from Australia at six o'clock this morning and therefore I did not have an opportunity to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the Building Societies Bill in another place was expected earlier. I have spent some time on a building society board although I am no longer involved. I have also been a member of the all-party building societies group. The toing and froing between building societies and the Government has been extensive. I believe that is why the Bill has not arrived earlier in another place. It was a case of trying to produce a measure that would be acceptable to all the parties involved.
I add my voice to those who welcome this measure today. I note that other noble Lords who are currently members of building society boards are present in the
1432
Chamber. The administration of building societies is far more complicated than one realises. It is complicated to sort out who is entitled to what. I believe that this measure is a step in the right direction. I support the Bill.
12.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, all we can really say about this Bill is that we are thankful it is here and we wish it had been here earlier. It addresses a matter of natural justice. The people we are discussing had money in an account which was being held for them for their use and was accruing interest for their use. However, they were denied the bonus that was paid out when some building societies changed their status. That should not have happened. I believe that building societies and the Government have become totally reactive on this matter. They have waited for problems to arise and then waited for pressure from this House, another place and the press to build up before they did something about it.
When building societies were first created they were not expected to become banks. When they decided to change their status someone should have examined their future structure and any problems that might arise. This is a warning to all of us that, if we are considering great changes, we should spend a great deal of time planning for that. We should also be prepared to listen to people's opinions and to consult widely.
Those who have spoken before me have covered the technical details. I am only sad that we cannot do more for those who have been adversely affected prior to this point. We can wish the Bill well. The lesson we can learn from this matter is that when one undertakes change which affects the general public one must consider such change from their point of view. It is quite clear that that was not done in this case. I hope that any future government, of whatever colour or persuasion, will bear that in mind and will show far more consideration for those people who are directly affected by a change which is often thought of as an administrative one.
12.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by paying tribute to my noble friend who has so persuasively introduced this Bill and who will take it through its remaining stages in this House. I also pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Gloucester, Mr. Douglas French, for his considerable efforts in drafting the Bill and his enviable achievement in ensuring its swift passage through all its stages in another place.
As all noble Lords have said, the concern behind the Bill is over cases where a carer or family member is the first-named on a building society account held for a person for whom it is not reasonably practicable to operate his account, and at the same time has another membership account with the same building society. Of course in the normal run of things, this makes little difference to either person. But recently it has made a difference where the accounts are held with a society which is proposing to convert or to be taken over.

1433
In these cases, the general practice is for only one bonus to be paid to the carer in respect of both accounts. Depending on the circumstances, there may well be a duty under trust law to pass on part of the bonus received to the disabled people, but as a consequence, the benefits accruing to the disabled person, and indeed to the first-named account holder, may well be substantially less than a first-named account holder would expect to receive.
Societies have generally paid only one bonus because their schemes are based on voting membership. Provided a scheme is within the law, it is for the society board and members to decide on a distribution scheme. Under the Building Societies Act 1986, only the first-named member on an account has a vote on the transfer proposals, or any other resolution of the society. This provision reflects the mutual constitution of societies. It also ensures against distortion of the voting base, for example by someone adding several names to an account to get extra votes. Likewise, a person with more than one account in his or her name will have only one vote. Both of these rules underpin the nature of mutual building societies, where the principle is one member, one vote.
I say "general practice" because there is no compulsion on converting societies to tie their distribution schemes to voting membership. A society embarking on conversion could propose a different scheme, including one with special provision for disabled and other second-named savers if it wished, not in precisely the way envisaged by this Bill, but with similar effect. This Bill is designed to make sure that in future, distribution schemes will specifically cater for savers who are limited, by disability, ill-health or age, in their ability to operate their accounts from day to day.
It is generally open to savers and carers to decide whose name should be first on the account, and so who has voting membership. Indeed, the 1986 Act gives joint savers and borrowers the statutory right to choose the order of names on an account if they wish. I hope that my noble friends and others will join me in welcoming the initiative of the Building Societies Association, which has issued guidance notes for its members in opening accounts where the saver—the person whose money it is—may not be the best person to manage the account on a day-to-day basis. In such cases, the saver may be the first-named member on the account, with a second-named member carrying out the practical operation of their account. Clearly that will go a long way towards resolving the problems that the Bill addresses.
The Bill we are discussing would address those cases where the first-named or sole named member on an account is acting on behalf of someone for whom it is not reasonably practicable to operate the account. At the time the account was opened it seemed sensible to put the account operator's name first, and no one could have foreseen that the order of names would have had the unwelcome consequence that it has turned out to have.
I started by praising the significant achievement of my honourable friend the Member for Gloucester, Mr. Douglas French. I hope that he will have a double
1434
whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reminded us that my honourable friend has already to his credit a Private Member's Bill on building societies on a closely related topic. With a bit of luck, and with your Lordships' support, he should have two such Bills to his credit. That is pretty good going with Private Members' Bills in another place, and especially Private Members' Bills on such a complex and technical subject as this Bill and indeed, the other measure. I congratulate him, and my noble friend Lord Hayhoe on taking up this issue in this House. I thank the three noble Lords who spoke, including my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, whom I welcome back. I am impressed with her stamina in speaking in the debate having got in on an overnight flight from the other side of the world. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Given the level of support, I am sure that the Bill will reach the statute book before the end of this Parliament.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that this limited measure has received. In view of the comments of my noble friend Lady Gardner, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was—I underline "was"—a non-executive director of a building society, as the noble Baroness was of a different society. I hope that the building societies which are converting will take note of what was said in the debate, in particular what has just been said by the Minister. If the Bill becomes law, the Bill will require societies in the future to act to redress the grievance of the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and the aged. But there is nothing to stop building societies which are converting now from taking that action of their own volition. I hope that they will take note of what has been said and of the fact that the Bill had all-party support in another place. I hope that those building societies will find some way of helping those people who have a real sense of grievance with the present situation.
I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received. I hope that it will now receive a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police (Health and Safety) Bill
12.33 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill seeks to put right an anomaly which has existed since 1975 when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 came into force.
I think that some of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that police officers who face a firebomb attack in the course of a riot are not covered by the health and safety legislation. This is because, unlike their civilian colleagues, the employment status of police officers does not fall within the 1974 Act's definition of employment.

1435
This Bill, which was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Wycombe, will put right this anomaly. It seeks to place police officers, special constables and police cadets in the same position as other workers under the health and safety legislation.
At this point I think that I should declare an interest as I have held the appointment of High Sheriff for Bedfordshire and I have served on the county police authority. But before that I had the honour of serving as a special constable in the City of London.
Pressure for this Bill has come from two directions. First, the police service itself wants to be covered by the health and safety legislation on a statutory basis. Secondly, the enactment of the Bill will enable Her Majesty's Government to implement more fully a series of European Union directives on health and safety, which apply to all workers.
The police federations and the other police representative bodies believe that the extra discipline which comes from statutory compliance will lead to real improvements in the health, safety and welfare of police officers.
Support for the legislation comes also from the Associations of Chief Police Officers, who are concerned by the drain on force budgets from sickness and early retirements due to accidents and assaults. Industrial experience indicates that good health and safety arrangements are beneficial both in economic terms and in improved morale.
I should like now to outline what the Bill does. Clause 1 is the key provision. It inserts a new section into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and brings police officers, special constables and police cadets under the protection of the Act. In legal terms it provides that a person who holds the office of constable, special constable or an appointment as a police cadet shall be treated as an employee for the purpose of the Act.
The Bill will apply to all constables and cadets. This will include those who serve in the area forces established under the Police Act 1996 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and also to forces established under other enactments, such as the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police and the forces which are responsible for docks and harbours.
The Bill will also apply to constables who are members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, which will be given statutory identities when the current Police Bill is enacted. Police officers who are seconded to central service units, such as the National Directorate of Police Training and Her Majesty's Inspectorates of Constabulary will also enjoy the Bill's protection.
For the purposes of the 1974 Act the employer of constables and cadets will be the chief officer of police for the area forces, and the Directors-General of NCIS and the NCS. In the case of other forces and central service the employer will be the person who has the direction and control of the constables or cadets in question.
1436
The new section provides also that, in the case of the area forces, the national police federations and the police representative bodies will perform the functions which the 1974 Act confers upon recognised trade unions. This is very important because it means that these bodies will be empowered to appoint safety representatives and require their chief officers to establish safety committees. In the case of the central service bodies and the other forces the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make corresponding provisions by means of regulations under Section 2 of the 1974 Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill extends the definition of "work" and "at work" as these terms are used in the 1974 Act. The effect is that a chief officer will only be responsible for securing the health and safety of his constables and cadets when they are actually on duty, that is during the hours that they are subject to his direction and control.
Clauses 3 and 4 insert new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996. The effect of these clauses is that, where a constable or a police cadet is penalised or dismissed because of actions which he has taken on grounds of health and safety, he will be able to seek redress from an industrial tribunal, over and above the rights he has under the police disciplinary procedures. At present police officers are expressly excluded from the protections provided by the Employment Rights Act 1996. This will put them on a par with other employees.
Clause 5 authorises police authorities to make payments from police funds in respect of compensation, costs or expenses awarded against the chief officer. In the case of civil proceedings the police authority will be required to pay the costs; but in the case of any settlement made out of court the authority is first required to approve the amount of the settlement.
Clause 5 also empowers a police authority, at its discretion, to pay a fine and costs imposed upon the chief officer who is the subject of criminal proceedings for breaches of the health and safety regulations. But I emphasise that this is a discretionary power and it will be for the police authority to determine on the facts of each case whether or not it would be appropriate to pay the fine.
Clause 6 makes two consequential amendments. The first is to the definition of "employment" in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The second amends Section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which specifies provisions of that Act which do not apply to persons in police service.
Clause 7 is simply a procedural matter to facilitate the extension of the health and safety legislation to constables and police cadets in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other forces in Northern Ireland. Clause 8 was approved as a money resolution in another place.
Finally, Clause 9 gives the Act its short title and also provides that it will come into force by order of the Secretary of State. It is important that there should be some flexibility over the commencement of the Act. Although the police service is already well on the way

1437
to complying with this legislation, forces will need some time to review their existing arrangements and to ensure that they are in a position to comply from the outset.
I believe that the Bill will contribute to substantial improvements in the health and safety of the police service. I am confident that the House will agree that this is a worthwhile objective and will wish to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend the measure to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Luke.)
12.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. I have tried very hard to find some flaw in this Bill to "hang on to" in order to retain some reputation as an Opposition spokesman. But both the Bill and the excellent introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, failed to provide me with any ammunition. On every point I have examined, the Bill is well thought out and well drafted.
All the questions that were raised by my honourable friends in another place appear to have been answered by the noble Lord and by the Government during the Bill's passage there. Their concerns were as to the extent of the Bill, in that it referred to police forces and police authorities. They were assured, as I am, that it covers the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the British Transport Police and other special police forces, and indeed all central services. They were concerned with the definition of "at work". Although it excludes police acting when not on duty, which is clearly necessary, it is a very wide definition and includes all the occasions when health and safety legislation appears to be necessary.
My honourable friends were concerned with the representation of trade unions and the ability of trade unions to have safety representatives and a safety committee. That has been assured by the Bill. They were concerned that there should be access to industrial tribunals when there is a dispute on safety matters and that has been provided in addition to existing police disciplinary procedures. So I can think of very little to object to.
The Bill itself is clearly right. It is seriously overdue. In the 23 years that have passed since the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the police ought to have had this protection and have never had it until now. It is welcome that at long last the protection is being extended to them.
I am therefore forced back on to my sour note of saying that this is another synthetic Bill. It is a noble aim for Sir Raymond Whitney and a noble aim for the noble Lord, Lord Luke. However, it is an abuse of procedures—particularly in another place where it is so difficult to find time for Private Member's Bills—that when a ballot is won government Bills are taken up rather than Bills of more independent origin. With that very minor caveat, we welcome the Bill.
12.45 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend on explaining his Bill so clearly and concisely. I was particularly glad to hear the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
As some noble Lords will know, the Bill will implement the policy which my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office announced last October. In their collaborative work he and my noble friend have earned the gratitude of the police service.
The Government are strongly committed to providing police officers with the best possible protection against the many dangers they face daily in the course of their duties. In recent years my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has provided forces with substantial resources to enable them to improve standards of officer safety. Officers have welcomed the additional protection provided by the new styles of baton and handcuffs, and the training which has accompanied their issue. Improvements have been made also to the standards of protective clothing, including the wider distribution of body armour. Following a successful pilot project last year, he has authorised the wider use of CS sprays.
My noble friend will be glad to know that in the past two years my right honourable friend has allocated £10 million to improving standards in the special constabulary. Much of the money has been spent in bringing their safety equipment and training up to the same level as that of their regular colleagues. The Government are very conscious of the debt we owe to the men and women who serve their communities in the special constabulary.
The Bill will complement this and will make police managers more aware of their responsibilities towards the safety of the officers they command. The Bill will empower the police representative bodies to play an important role in the appointment of safety representatives and establishing safety committees. These are essential components in the effective management of health and safety.
When the Bill was in another place the Police Federation, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, asked for a number of the provisions to be clarified. If your Lordships will permit me I will address the federation's concerns and provide the assurances it sought. I hope that that will also assist your Lordships' understanding of the issues.
The first issue concerns the role of the national police federations and the police representative bodies in appointing safety officers and serving on safety committees within the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and central service establishments such as the National Directorate of Police Training and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
As my noble friend explained, the Bill provides that, in the case of the area forces, the national federations and representative bodies will be deemed to be "recognised trade unions" for these purposes. In the case of NCIS, the National Crime Squad, central service organisations and the private forces, my right

1439
honourable friend will be empowered by the Bill to make regulations under Section 2(4) specifying which bodies will represent constables employed by those bodies. These regulations will be made in consultation with the chief officers and the representative bodies concerned. In policy terms our intention will be to designate the national federations and the other police representative bodies.
The Police Federation has been concerned also by a change in policy with regard to the right of access to industrial tribunals. I confirm that the effect of the Bill will be to provide a right of access to industrial tribunals for officers who have suffered detriment in health and safety cases, even in cases where they also enjoy a right of appeal to a police appeals tribunal.
In other words, the Bill will not affect an officer's rights of appeal to the police appeals tribunal. It will provide him with additional rights to take grievances on health and safety grounds to an industrial tribunal.
Work is already in hand to assist forces in implementing the legislation. Last October the Home Office published a comprehensive package of guidance on the steps which forces need to take in order to comply fully with the health and safety legislation. The guidance contains advice to senior officers on their strategic role for ensuring the effective management of health and safety. For middle managers there is a compendium of materials, covering such issues as training, the law, and how to prepare risk assessments.
An important part of our strategy has been a series of seminars to introduce the programme, firstly to chief officers and the chairmen of police authorities, and then to the key managers who will be responsible for applying it within forces. We are also reviewing current standards of health and safety training.
This work has been developed in close collaboration with the police and local authority associations and the Health and Safety Executive. Our aim is to ensure that forces will be in a position to comply with the new legislation from the outset. If your Lordships approve the Bill, my right honourable friend intends to allow forces at least 12 months' preparation time.
The Government are ever conscious of the risks which officers are exposed to daily in safeguarding the communities they serve. We shall always accord high priority to officer safety. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the attention given to the Bill. I think we have had a successful and useful short debate and some interesting points have been made. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not find any points to oppose.
I said earlier that I have had the honour to serve as a special constable. I am extremely glad that the Minister told us of the considerable support the Government are giving to the special constabulary which is a worthwhile body. I also know from personal experience some of the dangers which confront officers when patrolling our streets and investigating crime. During the 12 years
1440
when I served as a special, I took part in experiments with what were then called hand-held radios. They have contributed very considerably to the safety of constables by enabling proper communication to be maintained at all times on the beat. So much so that they are now entirely taken for granted.
I am convinced that the Bill will give the added protection the police deserve. That is certainly the view of the police service. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997
12.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House consider the Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations 1997; and will speak to the Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report)(Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997. Both of these statutory instruments make amendments to the accounting schedules of the Companies Act 1985.
I shall deal first with the new requirement to disclose payment policies in the directors' report. Your Lordships will be aware that the problems caused by late payment continue to cause concern to a number of small businesses. Indeed it was one of the main concerns highlighted last year when we gave small firms the opportunity to shape future policies through the regional Your Business Matters Conferences.
While there are no easy answers to tackling the problems caused by late payment, the Government are committed to helping small businesses. We have consulted widely and have introduced a number of positive measures to tackle the problems associated with late payment.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I think that the statement of payment practice regulations are the next item on the Order Paper. At the moment we are dealing with the disclosure of directors' emoluments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my brief has been prepared for both items so I may have to repeat what I have said on the statement of payment practice regulations later.
I shall now turn to the second draft order which will amend the statutory disclosure requirements relating to directors' emoluments.
Companies are required to provide information on directors' emoluments under Schedule 6 of the Companies Act 1985 so that shareholders and other readers of company accounts can satisfy themselves that

1441
the directors, in setting their remuneration, are acting reasonably. The Government believe that a statutory disclosure requirement continues to be necessary for all levels of company to achieve this objective.
The purpose of the order is to lay down revised basic disclosure rules applicable to all companies. Your Lordships will know that listed companies are subject to more detailed disclosure requirements under the Listing Rules of the London Stock Exchange.
The need for the revisions stems from the recommendations of the study group on directors' remuneration chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. Noble Lords will recall that the Greenbury group was set up in 1995 in response to public and shareholder concerns about the remuneration of company directors in the United Kingdom. The group concluded that UK companies mostly deal with directors' remuneration in a sensible and responsible way, but it felt also that there was scope to build on the progress that had already been made in improving corporate remuneration practices. Sir Richard put forward various proposals designed to ensure that directors' rewards were linked to performance and that the interests of directors and shareholders in promoting the company's progress were aligned.
One of the key Greenbury recommendations was that a report should be sent to shareholders each year explaining the company's approach to executive remuneration and providing full disclosure of all elements in the remuneration of individual directors. The London Stock Exchange incorporated this recommendation into its Listing Rules in December 1995.
The Government fully support the view that full disclosure of directors' pay by listed companies is of great importance in improving the accountability of directors to their shareholders. The Government therefore welcomed the Stock Exchange's lead in introducing new Listing Rules to require compliance with the key Greenbury recommendations, and the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking in another place that he would ensure that the provisions in the Companies Act relating to disclosure of directors' emoluments were consistent with the new Listing Rules. These draft regulations meet that commitment. They also implement two specific recommendations by the Greenbury group; namely, that the Government should remove from companies which make full disclosure of their directors' remuneration the obligation to show it in £5,000 bands; and that it should review the present requirements for disclosure of information on directors' pensions.
In revising the statutory disclosure requirements on directors' pay, the Government have sought to ensure that the requirements on unlisted companies are set at the minimum level necessary to ensure that directors are accountable to shareholders when setting their remuneration. The department accepts that it would not be appropriate for unlisted companies, whose shares are not publicly traded, to be subject to the same level of disclosure as listed companies. This is particularly so in the case of small companies, where, very frequently, all
1442
the shareholders are also directors of the company. The regulations therefore do not attempt to replicate the Listing Rules. Rather, they lay down a basic disclosure rule which is set at a level appropriate for unlisted companies, leaving to the Listing Rules to require more detailed disclosures by listed companies. There is a specific exemption from many of the disclosure requirements in the order for small unlisted companies.
We have been especially careful not to require information from unlisted companies which would impose additional costs on them. In particular, we have taken care not to require unlisted companies to make any disclosures which would require them to employ an accountant to make valuations of their shares or to employ an actuary to value pension entitlements.
The Government believe that the draft regulations will provide more useful information to shareholders than the current requirements without increasing the disclosure burden on companies. I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two examples of the way in which this has been achieved.
In the first place, they follow the Greenbury recommendation that information should be provided on each element of directors' remuneration. Companies will be asked to provide separate aggregate figures relating to basic pay, share options, long term incentive schemes and money purchase pension schemes. This will not mean extra work for companies since the individual figures are needed to compile the overall total, but it will enable readers of company accounts to see how companies structure their directors' remuneration packages.
In the second place, we have, in line with the recommendation by the Greenbury study group, reviewed the disclosure requirements relating to pension entitlements. In the case of money purchase schemes, the draft regulations require companies to disclose the value of company contributions, since this gives an accurate picture of the value to the director and the cost to the company. We do not believe, however, that the same holds true in the case of defined benefit schemes, where the level of company contributions may he misleading, if, for example, there is a contributions holiday in force or the director has received a big pay rise and is close to retirement.
The draft regulations therefore require companies to disclose the number of directors in each type of scheme as a marker to users of accounts that directors are accruing benefits under a defined benefit scheme. Companies where aggregate remuneration totals £200,000 or more are additionally required to disclose the accrued pension benefits of the highest paid director.
In summary, the aim of these draft regulations is twofold: first, to implement the recommendations of the Greenbury group to the Government and to bring the Companies Act disclosure requirements into line with the new Stock Exchange Listing Rules; and, secondly, to rationalise the disclosure requirements on unlisted companies.
I commend the regulations to the House.

1443
Moved. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument, which, as she told us, came from the recommendation of the Greenbury Committee. It is obviously designed to clarify payments made to directors in the form of salary and bonuses, gains made by the exercise of share options or incentive schemes and contributions to money purchase pension schemes.
The Minister explained why this measure applies only to quoted companies; namely, because the value of shares in unquoted companies in unknown. But that is the nub of the problem which Greenbury was asked to solve. The Minister will remember that the Greenbury Committee was set up largely because of public disquiet over the huge salary increases and wholly unreasonable share option schemes granted to directors of newly privatised utilities and public transport companies. They were unquoted companies and the public perception was and still remains that those companies are run for the benefit of the shareholders and the directors and not for the customers who depend on them—certainly not for the success of the staff who were quickly disposed of and, in the case of South West Trains, rather too quickly.
Perhaps an estimate should be made of the value of share options given to directors in unquoted regulated companies. That would certainly help to improve the public's perception of those companies. The Minister may remember that that point was raised when we debated the report of the commission on the regulation of privatised utilities in your Lordships' House on 12th February. I feel that it is misleading of the Government to say that it is impossible to estimate the share value of unquoted regulated companies, since they are doing it all the time. Only last week at that Dispatch Box a Minister gave us an estimate of the value of London Underground. The Government must be the biggest customer of the financial consultants who specialise in that kind of work.
The utilities and transport companies are an essential part of our infrastructure. It is right that they should be high in the public's esteem, so that they will use them and our economy will benefit. More transparency will certainly help that. The Minister must also be aware that many of our basic utilities are now controlled by foreign firms quoted in different countries. Will that regulation apply to them and, if so, how?
Away from the regulated sector, this regulation is probably adequate but it could he improved. Why should firms concentrate only on the remuneration of a small group of directors? What consumers are interested in is the relative pay between directors and the shop floor. Companies serving the public need some form of social consent and that is not best served by a growing disparity in pay between the top and the bottom. Differentials and incentives work for all, not just for directors.
1444
Let me make one final point. Is the Minister satisfied that this regulation will take care of all the tax devices thought up by the remuneration consultants? I mean such things as payments to a director's privately owned consultancy, split remuneration paid in several countries, remuneration paid to a spouse and generous allowances such as home moving costs. Also, I know that share options are not relevant where hospital trusts and quangos are concerned. But will the remaining regulations apply regarding payments made by those institutions?
In a small way this regulation touches on the difficult problems of pay determination. I hope that the Minister's department will lay down a code of best practice for that. Then companies can declare whether they are or are not following that code. Let us remember that more and better information helps to improve the operation of the capital market and the relationships between companies and stakeholders and helps everyone to make better long-term decisions. This regulation is a small but welcome start.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am not quite sure at the moment whether the noble Baroness has formally moved the next regulation which deals with payments to creditors. If she has done so, I should like to speak to it now. If not, I prefer to wait until she has done so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I had better say that I have not done so. It was a mistake. I shall come back to that regulation afterwards and the noble Lord can ask me what he will.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was rightly concerned about whether the disclosure should also cover quango board members and directors of private utilities. He was concerned with transparency, and so indeed are we. Information on the remuneration of board members and chief executives, for example, of national health service bodies or other non-departmental public bodies, is published in the Cabinet Office's annual publication Public Bodies and in the bodies' annual reports. The noble Lord is probably aware that copies are available in the House's Library.
But perhaps he was slightly more concerned with the utilities. So far as concerns the utility regulators, the salaries of the directors general are published in the 1996 Oftel and Ofgas reports. The 1996 annual report for Offer will be published later—I believe this week or next week. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that he can be reassured on that point. There is no secret. He has only to look at the Utility Weekly, which has a table of all the figures. So he can reassure himself on that point.
The noble Lord was also concerned in the case where the utility was a wholly owned subsidiary. Directors of wholly owned subsidiaries are not in the same position as directors of the parent companies, so far as concerns the ability to determine their own remuneration. The pay of directors of wholly owned subsidiaries is a matter for the parent company as the sole shareholder. The parent will have full access to relevant information without needing to rely on statutory disclosures.

1445
The noble Lord had great concern about the different ways in which the director works perhaps as a consultant to the company, having set up his own consultancy. The draft regulations require companies to disclose directors' remuneration and pension contributions in respect of their services as directors of the company or otherwise in connection with the management of the affairs of the company. The draft regulations retain the wording in the current Companies Act provisions. The words:
"the management of the affairs of the company"
have been given a very wide interpretation by the courts in another context. In our view, they encompass amounts received by a director in connection with any or all of his services to the company, including those undertaken in a consultant capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, can also be reassured that the existing provisions in the Companies Act which require things such as payment to wives or expense allowances to be included in figures to be disclosed in the report remain unchanged. So there is not a problem there.
The noble Lord was also concerned that directors of some United Kingdom companies are overpaid. We believe it is important to distinguish myth from reality. The Greenbury Report noted that for the most part remuneration levels of directors in the United Kingdom lie within the range of European practice and well below American levels. It is essential that British industry remains competitive. That will sometimes mean companies paying high salaries to attract or retain the very best executives. Those are decisions which can only be taken by companies and shareholders.
The noble Lord was concerned that directors' pay appears to rise more quickly than workers' pay. We believe that what is important in this matter is that United Kingdom industry remains internationally competitive. All salaries should be justified by performance and affordability. That is true for all levels.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I was concerned about the ratio between directors' pay and shop floor pay, which is measured now by most firms trying to assess the effectiveness of a business.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we believe it is important that the United Kingdom remains internationally competitive. We believe that all salaries, whether directors' pay or the pay of people working on the shop floor, should be justified by performance and affordability. We would like it to be true at all levels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report) (Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997
1.11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this statutory instrument makes amendments to the accounting schedules of the Companies Act 1985. I shall now deal with the requirement to disclose payment policies in the directors' report. I apologise to noble Lords if the first part sounds like a repeat performance.
Your Lordships will be aware that the problems caused by late payment continue to give concern to a number of small businesses. Indeed, it was one of the main anxieties highlighted last year when we gave small firms the opportunity to shape future policies through the regional Your Business Matters conferences. While there are no easy answers to tackling the problems caused by late payment, the Government are committed to helping small businesses. We have consulted widely and have introduced a number of positive measures to tackle the problems associated with late payment.
These regulations are just another element of that package of measures designed to help small businesses to help themselves and to change the culture towards payment practice. We have tried to find a straightforward way of stating payment performance which provides useful information in a readily understandable way. The figure to be disclosed represents in very broad terms the average time taken to pay suppliers. To ensure that all companies are working on a comparable basis, only one method has been stipulated in the regulations. This figure will help meet the needs of small suppliers by providing additional and easily understandable information on the payment practices of larger companies.
The new disclosure requirement is a logical next step to complement the payment policy disclosure we introduced last year. It is therefore only sensible that it should apply to the same companies. These are public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries. The new requirement will go in the directors' report alongside the policy disclosure. This should help smaller supplier companies which will not have to go through pages of notes to the accounts to search for just one figure. It should also enable users of the information to keep track, in a relatively straight forward way, of how a company's performance measured up to its stated policy year-on-year. No doubt, it will also give directors at the annual general meeting the opportunity to explain if these figures diverge.
The main aim of the regulations is to help small businesses to help themselves. We are providing useful information on the payment performances of PLCs and their large subsidiaries in a readily understandable format. We have consulted with the business community to identify the least burdensome method of doing this and the information should be relatively straightforward for companies to produce.
This new requirement is one of a number of measures implemented to tackle late payment. The regulations build upon the payment policy disclosure that was introduced last year and will enable small businesses to obtain more details of the payment record of larger companies that they may be considering doing business with. This measure should not, however, he seen as a substitute for proper credit management procedures but as an additional tool for small businesses which provides

1447
easy to understand information on the payment records of large businesses. As such, it is a valuable tool and shows how this Government are able and willing to listen to the views of the small business community and to act on its wishes and in its interests. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th January be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of these new regulations dealing with statements of payment practice. They come not a moment too soon. For many years now it has been the practice of some large companies—not all—and some government departments—but not all—to delay payment to some of their suppliers that lacked the protection of bigness. That is particularly applicable to small businesses, many of which, over the past 18 years—and even before that—have literally gone out of business because they have failed to get bank support in respect of some of their debtors that have delayed payments for as long as possible.
In connection with this, I observe that the regulations will be signed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Businesses, Industry and Energy in the Department of Trade and Industry. I suppose there is a certain poetry about that because the president himself, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Henley, revealed in his memoirs, published comparatively recently, that one of the foundations of the success of his businesses was the delay he was able to enforce in paying his suppliers. In fact, the document shows that he had some pride in that. His companies paid up at the last possible moment before the coming to court of the writs that would be issued in some cases.
Still, I do not make any point of that now. We are in a very friendly pre-election atmosphere and I would not wish to take undue advantage of it. I understand that since the parliamentary row was created on this matter, mainly from this side of the House, the payment of government departments to their suppliers has considerably improved. I am told that in 85 per cent. of the cases involving government department payments are made within a reasonable time and within the time stipulated by the government department to the suppliers themselves. Mind you, 85 per cent. still leaves 15 per cent., and 15 per cent. of outsourcing government requirements to subcontractors still represents a considerable sum within the national turnover. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the performance will improve.
These regulations deal with companies and the consequent alterations or additions to the Companies Act. I have no complaint about the content of the regulations, which, I understand, have been discussed with the representatives of small business interests and my own profession. Incidentally, I should declare a professional interest in that I am a practising chartered accountant and have to deal with matters of this kind.
What troubles me a little is that the information is to be given not in the notes to the accounts, but in the directors' report. Doubtless there is the very good reason
1448
of convenience, but I am bound to point out that the contents of the directors' report, unlike notes to the accounts to which the report relates, are not subject to surveillance and certification by the company's auditors. It is to be hoped, even though the report contains the particulars required and being unaudited, that they are going to be reliable. I sincerely trust that that will be the case because if not it would be a matter of serious worry.
If one refers to the particular parts of the regulations that have some impact on this, one has to look only to the disclosure in the directors' report:
"if the company's policy is different for different suppliers or classes of suppliers, the report shall identify the suppliers to which the different policies apply".
It continues,
"In this sub-paragraph references to the company's suppliers are references to persons who are or may become its suppliers".
I imagine that that can be quite a lengthy addition to the directors' report which, I am devoutly assured, is read eagerly by all the shareholders.
But what happens to the suppliers themselves? If the company is a very large one it may have perhaps 50 or 70 suppliers. How are they going to get this information? It is no requirement of the Companies Act that the directors' report should be circulated to the suppliers of the company. The accounts of the company are supplied to the shareholders with a copy in due course to the company's file in Companies House. How is a disgruntled supplier going to go about pursuing the company concerned which he is supplying and against which he may have a complaint?
First, he has to go to Companies House and get the information required, and that is not always very easy. It is also time consuming. Then he has to wade all through the material to find out exactly how the company has complied with this particular regulation. It is quite true that if a supplier belongs to a trade association looking after his or her interests or a small company's interests, then that association may have a routine examination of the files of directors' reports at Companies House. All this does not make the information required readily available to the people it most concerns.
I have no doubt that we shall be told, with some justification, that the very existence of this regulation of itself may do much to address the evils of late payment to suppliers and that may well be so. But I would have thought that without some surveillance at some point by the company's auditors, some of the reports are not always going to be reliable, and once that becomes known, then much of the deterrent effect will not be present.
One welcomes the regulations themselves. I believe that it was a great mistake to put the material in the directors' report rather than to formally incorporate it in the notes to the accounts, which, as your Lordships know, are subject to audit by the auditors of the company. I press that point with diffidence because it would mean increased fees to my profession and I do not like to stomach that, of course. Being a very modest man, I would not wish the company to bear unnecessary

1449
costs. The best thing for companies to do, therefore, if they want to avoid the ultimate imposition of my own profession on their activities, is to make quite sure that they never make a mistake and pay all their suppliers promptly as they should.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument and we welcome it but under the "too-little-too-late" heading. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce that the matter of late payments has been discussed for many years and I thank him for reminding us that the Deputy Prime Minister told us that is how he financed his business many years ago. Fortunately, business thinking has moved on since then and payments now form one part of the relationship between customers and suppliers. That of course is why this proposal is too late.
It is too little because choosing a balance sheet ratio, as my noble friend Lord Bruce will know, is open to all kinds of manipulation. For instance, a company can be a bad payer for 11 months but pay promptly for one month before the end of the financial year and the ratio will then look very good. Also, many businesses are seasonal and if the financial year-end is at a time of low purchases, then again the ratio will look good. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how this manipulation can be dealt with.
I also believe that this proposal misses the essential point that it is not necessarily quick payment that is important in running a small business, but payment on time. Many small firms give extended credit and cost it in. What firms need to know is which companies pay on time, not necessarily which of them pay quickly. The culture of payment practice needs to be established within the trading relationship between the customers and the suppliers. Customers want good, reliable suppliers as they are essential to their own business; and suppliers want good, paying customers. This culture of mutual dependence needs to be encouraged.
I agree with the Minister that it is important to encourage best practice and that that involves credit management and a system of discounts. In addition, I wonder why companies should not be encouraged to adopt the British Standard for Prompt Payment (BS 7890). Announcing the adoption of this standard will overcome all the balance sheet manipulations. The standard can be adopted too by local authorities, government departments and other institutions which do not trade as companies. As part of that best practice auditors could report on the company's record of keeping to their prompt payments policy—how many days early or late they are and not just how long they take. That could be in the audited accounts and not in the directors' report. I often think that the DTI is at its best when it is suggesting and encouraging best practice. In that way we could be doing a lot more to encourage prompt payment.
Setting an example is also important. The Government have promised us league tables on their own payment performance. The initial record was not good so let us see whether the league tables produce an improvement. But if they are an incentive, why does not the Minister adopt Labour's proposal of collating the payment records
1450
of those companies which have reported on them and publish them in the form of league tables? That would help deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce about how firms are going to find that information. In this way small firms can see for themselves the relative performance of large companies. One may never know, but it may shame some companies and debtors into improving their performance.
As regards the statutory right to interest, which is always involved with this matter of prompt payment, business is divided. I believe that a statutory right could motivate companies to pay on time, but I believe that perhaps that would only work largely between major companies because small ones are not going to sue major companies for the money. The Minister said that the Government are anxious to keep reporting requirements to a minimum, but the Minister may have noticed that recently companies are voluntarily reporting more and more about things other than their financial record. They are reporting on corporate objectives, the development of skills, training, new technology and their relationships with suppliers and customers. In the context of their relationship with suppliers, companies can report on how well they have done regarding their payments policy in terms of both time and promptness.
It is important to encourage best practice because, as my noble friend Lord Bruce reminded us, late payments have helped to drive many small and medium-sized companies out of business or have caused them in turn to pay their suppliers late and thereby set up a chain of trouble. This is a serious matter. We should like to see much more done to change the culture, but we welcome the regulations as a first step.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, noble Lords have asked many questions and I very much hope that I shall be able to answer them all satisfactorily. I shall read Hansard carefully to see whether I have replied to all of them and if I have not managed to do so, I promise to write to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, explained how very bad it is for a small company to be kept waiting for payment. I totally agree. As the noble Lord rightly said, that was one of the reasons for introducing the regulations. The noble Lord commented on what my right honourable friend the former President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, said about late payment. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also commented on that. So perhaps I should start by saying that the remarks cited are not exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister said. He highlighted the fact that many small businesses are dependent upon trade credit and that if there are temporary cash flow difficulties they will need tolerance from their creditors and the flexibility to negotiate payment terms. That is not condoning late payment; it is recognising a fact of business life. Businesses can, and should where possible, protect themselves from

1451
those who abuse their trust. Effective credit management procedures will reduce the number and degree of payment problems that small businesses face.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Before she parts company with the position of the right honourable Member for Henley, perhaps I should advise her that I can if necessary—and shall—confront her with the quotation from his book, which I have in my possession, in which he boasted of the fact that he paid as late as possible in order to found the prosperity of his business.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord will indeed show that to me. The noble Lord also commented on the fact that in many respects the Government are the worst offender when it comes to late payment. We are now constantly monitoring our payment performance. I think that that is very good news and something to be applauded.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked why the disclosure should appear in the directors' report and not in the actual accounts. I know that that has nothing to do with the fact that the noble Lord happens to be an accountant because the noble Lord actually said that that was not why he had made the suggestion. We believe that putting the new requirement in the directors' report, alongside the policy disclosure, should help smaller supplier companies who will not have to go through pages of notes to the accounts to search for one figure. It should also enable users of the information to keep track in a relatively straightforward way of how a company's performance measures up to its stated policy year on year. No doubt, it will also give directors at the annual general meeting the opportunity to explain any divergence of the figures. It will not be a lengthy addition to the directors' report. It is a minimum requirement. We are trying to deal with this problem by means of a light touch. It is always open to directors, however, to explain and to present additional evidence when questioned.
The noble Lord was also concerned about how the requirement would be enforced. He felt that if the information was in the directors' report, it would not be as secure and safe, as it were, as if it formed part of the auditors' responsibility when preparing the accounts. Under the Companies Act, it is a criminal offence for company directors to fail to comply with the disclosure requirements in the directors' report. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, knows far more about that than I do. In addition, it is currently the case that auditors are required to ensure that information given in the directors' report is consistent with that given in the accounts. There is an obligation on them to do that. Furthermore, any supplier is entitled to ask for annual accounts from any company that he wants to supply.
I turn now to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who was concerned about whether there might be some "manipulation" of the figures. I believe that the noble Lord used that word. We do not believe that companies will manipulate their trade creditor figure at the end of the year simply to achieve a better
1452
payment practice figure as that would have an adverse effect on their overall cash flow and on their liquidity position. It could be the case that the year-end figure for trade creditors is unrepresentative. However, overcoming that would require a more onerous calculation; for instance, through requiring a monthly rather than an annual calculation, which would increase compliance costs and so negate the overall advantage of the proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was also concerned that there might be seasonal distortions in the overall manipulation of the figures, as he put it. I hope that any fluctuation due to seasonality would be explained by the company. The only way of avoiding such a fluctuation would be to devise a more onerous calculation, for instance, through requiring a monthly rather than an annual calculation. However, that would increase compliance costs and negate the overall advantage of the proposal. As I said earlier, we have tried to deal with this problem by means of a light touch. I believe—I stress that this is only a belief and that if I am wrong I shall write to noble Lords and place a copy of my letter in the Library—that there was wide consultation on the point and that this was felt to be the best way of dealing with the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was also concerned about how long it takes a company to pay its creditors. He said that a supplier would want that information. Any requirement to provide such information on a detailed statistical basis would be quite burdensome, but it will be open to companies to comment on their performance. As the payment performance figure will be reported alongside the statement of payment policy, any discrepancy between the two will be apparent to readers of the accounts.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was trying to make was that it is not the length of time taken to pay that is important—firms sell credit; many firms give long credit and cost it in—but the promptness of the payment. If somebody is due to pay in three months' time, what matters is whether they pay in three months or in four months. That extra month of credit is what causes the difficulty.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord suggested that the Government should produce or introduce league tables showing that performance so that everybody can have access to such information. We do not have any plans to do that. The disclosure of payment performance will be publicly available in the directors' reports of companies which are filed with the Registrar of Companies. It will, of course, be open to anyone who would like to produce league tables of such information to do so. As an aside, I should point out that there are an enormous number of companies and that I am not quite sure of how practical such a suggestion might prove. In any event, the Government do not see that as their role.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked why the Government have again rejected legislation on a statutory right to interest. The recent review of the case

1453
for legislation highlighted concerns about the possible effects of statutory interest, particularly on small businesses. It was notable that a number of organisations representing the interests of small firms had changed their views on the merits of legislation. The vast majority of such organisations are now opposed to statutory interest. Concerns continue to be raised that legislation would be used primarily against small businesses rather than for and by them. As the noble Lord said, small businesses would be reluctant to use such legislation for fear of jeopardising their business relationships and legitimising late payment, and large businesses would simply extend their credit terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked me about BS7890. Both the Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Treasury have acknowledged that they will be adopting that standard. We believe that all other departments will follow their lead.
It may be that I have not answered all the points that have been raised by noble Lords. I will ensure that a fuller answer is provided if my response has not covered the points that have been made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill
1.40 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
The Bill now before your Lordships is a relatively complex solution to a readily understandable problem. That problem is the misuse by defendants and others of statements and photographs of victims of sexual offences. These statements and photographs of victims in sexual offence cases often contain intimate details of both the victim and the offence itself. Victims' statements, photographs of victims and medical reports on the physical condition of the victims of sexual offences will all become protected material under this Bill. Material of this kind has been used as pornography and passed round prisons to other inmates unconnected with the case. On occasion it has even been circulated by defendants and relatives outside prison in an attempt to intimidate the victim during legal proceedings.
These practices are evil and the Bill will put an end to them. If the Bill is complex it is because it must allow a defendant to examine material while at the same time preventing the possibility of that material being used for nefarious purposes.
The Bill provides a supervised access regime which would confer automatic protection on a victim's statement (written or recorded on video, audio or other media), photographs and pseudo-photographs and medical examination reports of the victim's physical condition.
The material covered by this scheme relates only to sexual offences because it is the misuse of this material in such cases that has caused the greatest concern. The range of offences covered by the Bill is set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. They include any attempt, incitement or conspiracy to commit these offences.
1454
The scheme in this Bill is designed to prevent the defendant from keeping a copy of the protected material, although he would be able to have full access to it under supervision. This means that he could not have it in his possession to show others as pornography or to copy and circulate further. To prevent the defendant from obtaining unsupervised access from other sources, no one else would be allowed to see the material except under strict conditions.
For the vast majority of defendants who are legally represented supervised access to protected material would be provided by their legal representatives, whether or not the defendants were in custody. The legal representative would be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that the material was not shown to the defendant other than in circumstances in which there was adequate supervision to ensure that the defendant could not keep it or make copies. The legal representative would also undertake to make sure the material was not shown to another person other than the defendant, except where the legal representative thought it necessary in connection with any relevant proceedings or for the purposes of assessment or treatment of the defendant.
In the comparatively rare case of a defendant in a sexual offence case not wishing to have legal representation, access to protected documents would be provided by the police or the Prison Service, depending on whether the defendant was on bail or in custody. The defendant would be told that the material was subject to the regime and that it would be an offence for him to have it in his possession but that arrangements would be made for him to have access to it under supervision at the local police station if on bail or in prison if in custody. The scheme provides for the defendant to have such supervised access that he reasonably requires for the purpose of preparing his defence, appeal or any other criminal proceedings.
If the scheme is to be effective it must he capable of being enforced. The Bill makes it an offence for the defendant or any other person to whom the protected material is given to breach the requirements of the regime. In the event of an alleged breach, it would be for that person to show that he did not know or suspect or have reason to suspect that the material was subject to the regime. The maximum penalties for a breach would be imprisonment for two years or a fine or both. The court would be able to order the return of the material to the prosecutor. There would be a right of appeal in the normal way against conviction and any order requiring the return of the material.
I turn briefly to the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 defines protected material as including copies of victim statements, photographs, pseudo-photographs and medical reports of victims which are disclosed by the prosecutor in sexual offence cases. Clause 3 provides for the prosecutor to disclose material in one of two ways. If the defendant has a legal representative who is willing to give the undertaking to supervise the defendant's access to the material then the prosecutor will give a copy of the protected material to the

1455
defendant's legal representative. If not, the prosecutor will give the material to the appropriate person to disclose to the defendant under supervised conditions.
Clause 4 describes in more detail the undertaking by the defendant's legal representative. Not only must he show the material only to the defendant in supervised circumstances but he must also provide that material to third parties only if it is necessary for the purposes of the legal proceedings or for the treatment of the defendant. He must inform anyone to whom he gives the material that it is protected material and that it would be an offence to pass it on to any other person.
Clause 5 defines the appropriate person to reveal protected material to an unrepresented defendant. If the defendant is in custody then the appropriate person is the prison governor or his nominee. If the defendant is not in custody the appropriate person is the officer in charge of a suitable police station or his nominee.
Clause 6 provides for the prosecutor further to disclose protected material if this is necessary because a legal representative dies or an unrepresented defendant acquires a legal representative.
Clause 7 provides for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose material to an applicant in the same way that the prosecutor discloses material to a defendant. The commission will be responsible for disclosing material to the defendant where it declines to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. Clause 8 creates offences of possessing protected material and passing the protected material to others except as allowed by the Bill.
The Bill does not prevent a defendant from having access to the material which he must have in the interests of justice, to prepare his defence. A defendant will be able to examine protected material, but his examination will be supervised to prevent his retaining the material or making a verbatim copy of it. The defendant will be allowed to make manuscript notes of parts of the material in order to prepare his defence, but it will be an offence to pass these notes to others.
The Bill is designed to prevent the misuse of material relating to victims of sexual offences while at the same time protecting the rights of defendants. I believe that it contains a workable solution to end a scandalous practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Byford.)
1.50 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this is an admirable Bill, most effectively introduced, and clearly long overdue. I suspect that most of us were unaware of the way in which this unpleasant material circulates in our prisons to the obvious added distress of the victims of sex crime. There is only one thing wrong with it: its great benefits do not extend to the whole of the UK. Why that should be, I do not know. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the lawyers and draftsmen in the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the benefits of the Bill extend to the whole country.
1456
Without some such relatively speedy action, victims whose attackers happen to be incarcerated in Scottish or Northern Irish prisons will go on suffering to some extent, mentally even if not physically. Clearly a Committee stage amendment to try to rectify that would fall foul of the fact that it is late in the Session, and might jeopardise the Bill's passage. That is the very last thing that we should wish. Better that the benefits of the Bill extend to England and Wales than to nowhere at all.
Could the Minister say whether the Government will do their best to try to see that the Bill's benefits are extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland at some point? It would also be nice if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could guarantee, if his party comes to power in a couple of months' time, that Labour will do its best to ensure that the benefits are extended to the UK as a whole.
1.52 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a good Bill which was ably introduced. In responding to the two previous Private Members' Bills I did not make the usual proviso that I speak personally and not on behalf of my noble friends. There is a good reason for that: these are not really Private Members' Bills; they are Home Office Bills. Under those circumstances it is perfectly proper for the Opposition to speak formally as the Opposition. Having done that, I shall repeat my sour note: these should not be Home Office Bills. The Private Members' Bills procedure should be used for Bills whose origin is not the Government's. It is an abuse of the Private Member's Bill procedure to have synthetic Bills of this sort.
The Bill addresses a narrow but important issue, as the noble Baroness said. It is not one that is new. The Home Office itself produced a consultation paper on the problem in 1991 without reaching a firm conclusion about how to tackle the problem. The Runciman Royal Commission reporting in 1993 addressed the problem, and again was not clear about the solution to it, although I think that the response of the Law Society to the Royal Commission came close to describing the kind of protection which is offered by the Bill.
In the proceedings of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill in this House only a year ago (19th February 1996) my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 19 which was, in a single new clause, an attempt to address this problem. He was supported in that by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. In her response, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, properly referred to the need for any measure of this kind to accord with the general principles of open justice and indeed our international obligations to ensure that defendants have access to the material they properly need in order to present their defences. There is no reference to international obligations in the Bill, but it would be useful if, in responding, the noble Earl could record, as I hope that he will be able to, that the Government believe that we are meeting our international obligations by the way in which the Bill is drafted.

1457
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had a number of objections to my noble friend's amendment which was in the end withdrawn. Again, I would be grateful if the noble Earl, in responding for the Government, could confirm that the Bill meets the objections which were raised. The noble Baroness's first objection was that my noble friend's proposal for the prosecution to apply for an order restricting access to this material was a burden upon the prosecution. I understand the Bill to say that, instead of the prosecutor having to apply for an order, the prosecutor discloses material but only when suitable undertakings about restricted access have been given.
The noble Baroness referred to the need to make provision for unrepresented defendants. I understand that Clause 4, in designating the prison governor or the officer in charge of the police station, meets that point. She referred to the lack of a penalty, although my noble friend, I think rightly, in reply said that the penalty could perfectly well have been a contempt of court penalty; but it is true that the Bill provides for specific criminal penalties.
So, after at least six years of discussion, we appear to have come up with a solution of supervised access which seems to be acceptable. I have a tiny point on the explanatory and financial memorandum. Although it is called the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill, the memorandum refers to:
"Proceedings relating to specified sexual and other offences".
I should like to know what is meant by "other offences" when the Bill's Short Title and its schedule are specific about it being restricted to sexual offences.
I shall not repeat the arguments for the Bill's necessity, which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and had been made last year by my noble friend Lord Williams. It is clearly highly undesirable that pornography of this kind, normally violent pornography, should be circulated inside or outside prison, using what has been a loophole in our criminal procedures. We welcome this attempt to block that loophole.
1.58 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I support and congratulate my noble friend Lady Byford who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I am glad also that she has the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The Bill gives statutory effect to proposals which we announced last year and which were very widely welcomed. I believe that it will make a real contribution to the fight against this dreadful crime.
I should like to begin by placing the Bill in the context of the Government's general strategy for dealing with sex offenders. A number of recent tragic cases have brought home to us all the risks posed, particularly to children, by sex offenders, and there is a clear need for additional measures to strengthen the arrangements already in place to protect the public against them. We are taking a number of steps to improve that protection. For example, the Crime (Sentences) Bill provides that all sex offenders will receive extended supervision after
1458
release for a minimum of 12 months or 50 per cent. of the sentence, extendable up to 10 years at the court's discretion.
The Sex Offenders Bill contains two main proposals, both of which are intended to protect children from sexual abuse. First, it imposes a requirement on those convicted of sexual offences against children and other serious sexual offences to register their name and address, and any subsequent changes, with the police. Secondly, it makes it an offence for UK residents to commit sexual acts against children abroad.
The third government measure is the Protection from Harassment Bill. This provides protection against stalking, a phenomenon that may often have a sexual element sometimes directed against child victims.
We are also supporting an important Private Member's Bill, the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill. This Bill extends police powers to obtain DNA tests for all convicted sex offenders still serving a sentence.
As well as these legislative measures, we published proposals last month for a prohibition on sex offenders seeking employment with children. Copies of the proposals were placed in the Library. That was one of the elements discussed in the consultation document we issued last year entitled Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders. It received widespread support, but it was clear from the comments received that further work was necessary to develop an effective scheme. The results of that work are contained in the paper published last month jointly by the Home Office and the Scottish Office.
I turn now to the Bill introduced by my noble friend. It contains proposals for a statutory scheme to provide defendants in sexual offence cases with supervised access to sensitive victim statements, photographs and pseudo-photographs, and medical reports. This type of material often contains detailed and intimate information about the victim and the crime. Defendants have previously used and circulated such material to others as a form of pornography. Such misuse causes great distress to victims and their families. It may also discourage victims from reporting crime and so make more difficult the task of providing the public with better protection from sex offenders.
Action to tackle the problem raises fundamental issues about the rights of defendants to know the evidence against them, and the rights of victims to protection from further distress by the misuse of their statements or photographs of them.
In 1991 the Home Office issued a consultation paper, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which set out a number of options, statutory and voluntary, for tackling the problem. But no consensus emerged on how best to proceed. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice subsequently recommended, in its report published in 1993, that in sexual offence cases defendants should be required to return victims' statements to the instructing solicitor at the end of the case. We took the view that such an approach would not provide an effective solution because defendants would be able to misuse statements or photographs, and take

1459
copies of them, during the proceedings. Any scheme must provide immediate and certain protection for material of this kind throughout the proceedings and with the minimum disruption to the normal conduct of the case.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the amendment tabled last year to the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Bill. I know that the party opposite shares the view of the Government that action is needed to tackle the misuse of victim statements and other material. The amendment tabled at Third Reading in this House would have allowed the prosecutor, in any case, to apply to the court for an order restricting access by the defendant to a statement or photograph if he reasonably believed that it might be misused.
The Government acknowledged the spirit in which the amendment was moved but was unable to support it. We believed that there should be a clear category of material which would be protected automatically without the procedure of having to make an application to a court. An application procedure would involve prosecutors and the courts expending a great deal of effort to identify material to be protected. We also believed that any measures should be targeted at helping victims of sexual offences, including children. That is where there is the greatest potential for misuse of material of this kind. Finally, the amendment was silent on the critical issue of disclosure to the unrepresented defendant. There were no provisions for the enforcement of the scheme.
Those concerns were expressed earlier in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As he said, the unrepresented defendant will be shown the material by the governor or the police in charge of the case. Penalties for misuse exist in the form of fines. I can confirm that what the noble Lord said was correct. The Bill introduced by my noble friend Lady Byford overcomes the difficulties inherent in the amendment tabled last year and the Government are pleased to support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised two important issues concerning Scotland and Northern Ireland. My information indicates that the legal system is very different in Scotland. Investigation is conducted by the defence, so it is not the same system of disclosure of material by the Crown to the defendant as in England and Wales.
I am told that consultation in Northern Ireland revealed no specific evidence of any particular problem in relation to the misuse of victims' statements. However, I will pass the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend, so perhaps the issue can be kept in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, perhaps I may give the assurance asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I will pass his comments to my honourable friend
1460
Jack Straw. I shall bring to his attention the request of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the Bill should be extended to cover Scotland.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is passing the noble Lord's comments to his honourable friend.
In conclusion, the Bill is entirely consistent with the Government's general strategy for dealing with sex offenders. It provides an effective means of tackling the misuse of victims' statements and other material in sex offence cases and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
2.6 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. We are all most anxious about the loopholes in the law which have existed for some time. It is important that we protect the victims, in particular children. Those of us who have children—in my case, grandchildren—will he only too well aware of the heart-rending that has been caused by those loopholes. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the legislation should cover the whole country and I shall look into that further. With those few comments, I ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Deregulation (Employment in Bars) Order 1997
2.8 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is to be laid under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It amends Section 170 of the Licensing Act 1964 to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to work in bars if they are employed on a training scheme which has been approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. In the first instance, approval is expected to be limited to the modern apprenticeship scheme.
The order has received the usual comprehensive examination since it was first laid before Parliament in draft form on 10th June 1996. At the end of that initial scrutiny period the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that a number of amendments be made to the draft order. The Government accepted those recommendations and laid an amended order on 16th December. The committee has now reported that the order is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House for affirmative resolution.
As your Lordships will be aware, the law currently prohibits anyone aged under 18 from working in a bar while it is open for the sale or consumption of alcohol. That prevents the licensed trade recruiting

1461
16 and 17 year-old school leavers into the industry at a time when many of the best candidates make their career choice. Employers have expressed concern that too many of those who enter the industry are the less motivated and responsible candidates who have previously failed to settle to a career. That creates a burden on the licensed trade which is seen in a less efficient workforce, greater and more costly training needs and a higher staff turnover than might otherwise be expected.
The licensed trade is a successful and expanding area of the economy. Employment in this sector is forecast to grow rapidly and the ability to recruit and retain high quality staff will play an important part in its future success. This proposal would benefit young people by opening up a valuable career opportunity. It would also benefit customers because better trained and motivated staff should raise the overall quality of service provided.
The order now before the House gives the Secretary of State the power to approve a training scheme if he is satisfied that it meets certain specific requirements. In particular the scheme must include satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training provided and for assessing the progress of apprentices. It must also ensure that the apprentice is properly supervised, either by the licensee or by a suitable adult who acts on his or her behalf. Such supervision will protect the young person from being placed under pressure from customers, including under-age friends asking to be served, or from any difficulties arising from drunkenness or disorder.
Any employer wishing to participate in the training scheme will have to inform the police of his intention to do so. The police will then have the opportunity to raise with the scheme organisers any concerns about the suitability of the employer or the premises before a decision is taken.
Finally, the order allows apprentices to work in the bar only during normal licensing hours. That will prevent their late night employment in night clubs or in premises which change their nature as a result of late night licence extensions.
To sum up, the order will provide new career opportunities for young people while retaining those protections necessary to prevent exploitation and alcohol abuse. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [11th Report from the Deregulation Committed]—(The Earl of Courtown).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will expect us to welcome the order, and we do. It is in line with the deregulation policies of the Government and it is in line with those parts of the deregulation policy which we support. In particular, we welcome it because of the impetus that it gives to training for young people and, as the Minister knows, we are very much in favour of the modern apprenticeship scheme of which this could and should form an important part.
I am rather surprised to read in paragraph 13 of the Home Office statement on the order the reference to the representations made to the Home Office by
1462
representatives of the licensed trade but no reference to the representations made by the Trades Union Congress. The TUC wrote on 11th April of last year to the Home Office and it wrote on 1st July of last year to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In view of the importance of the TUC in representing workers, including young workers, that should have been recognised not just in the list of people invited to consult but in the list of people who made representations.
The TUC had no objection in principle to the order because it recognises and supports the need for training and protection of young people. It recognises that the order requires that there should be satisfactory arrangements for monitoring the quality of training and the progress of apprentices.
There are worries which are not the fault of the Government. However, the simple fact is that a very large number of bars, the places of employment covered by the order, are small and very difficult to monitor. If the monitoring is to be the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils, which I understand to be the case, will the Minister assure us that the TECs have the capability to cope with monitoring health and safety, the quality of supervision, the quality of training itself and the progression provided by the training; and that there is adequate provision for action to be taken against employers who fail to meet the requirements? As I say, I am not blaming the Government for this, but it is intrinsically a difficult and expensive problem for TECs to provide the monitoring for such relatively small places of employment. With that proviso and that query, I repeat my welcome for the order.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I also welcome the order. Only last week we had the Bass Carrington annual lunch which is given to parliamentarians during which the chairman gave his address and explained the strategy and the results of the past year and told us how the group was progressing. He placed special emphasis on the importance to that group—and that will be duplicated elsewhere—of the training of young people in the licensing trade. He was criticised from the floor afterwards when questions were asked as regards the low rates of pay for young people starting in the trade. However, as the chairman pointed out, that training is very complete and thorough. They are aiming to bring people to the point where they could possibly run a public house on their own after two years' training.
I have a niece who started in the trade at the age of 21 and, by 23, she was running a pub in Clapham which cannot be an easy area in which to do so. She now has a very lucrative job in the pharmaceutical industry so, unfortunately, they did not manage to keep her. However, I was most impressed by the training which she received and by the way in which she dealt with the day-to-day running of a pub, especially as regards violence in pubs which, of course, is always a danger. Only if you have trained people—and trained young people—who are able to spot trouble before it happens, will you be able to reduce the possibility of such flare-ups which, unfortunately, happen in our society and in other societies.

1463
This is an admirable effort by the Government; indeed, for the second time this morning. I am delighted that common sense is being brought into the whole area at last. Having said that, and on a cheery note, I congratulate the Government yet again on their efforts. I hope that we shall see further efforts along the same lines in the future.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support of the order. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned a number of points regarding TECs and health and safety. The TECs are bound by a detailed contract with the Department for Education and Employment which covers the quality, health and safety and the content of all modern apprenticeships. Each TEC in turn holds contracts with individual employers either directly or through a training provider covering such matters. Such issues are no less important for the modern apprenticeship schemes that TECs monitor perfectly satisfactorily. Under the order the police have the opportunity to raise objections with a TEC if any employer or premises is considered unsuitable for participation in the apprenticeship scheme.
Questions have also been raised about supervision. The TEC has to be satisfied as to the suitability of an employer before agreeing to support a modern apprenticeship. It will look at an employer's ability to provide structured training, arrangements for the apprentice to be assessed against NVQ standards and the employer's arrangements for managing the modern apprenticeships, including monitoring and reviewing the apprentice's progress through the NVQ system.
I was asked what action could be taken against employers. I can tell the noble Lord that licensees failing to meet their responsibilities may be prohibited from further participation in the scheme. Employers would normally be given the opportunity to put matters right before being withdrawn from the scheme. The Hospitality Training Foundation, which is the industry training organisation for this particular modern apprenticeship, will issue guidance to all prospective employers setting out their responsibilities and the consequences of failing to meet them. Once again, I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1997
2.18 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order, which has been scrutinised by the parliamentary scrutiny committees of both Houses, amends the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 and the Gaming Act 1968 as follows. First, it allows casinos in England and Wales to apply for special hours certificates to enable them
1464
to serve alcohol up to 3 a.m. in London and 2 a.m. elsewhere; and, secondly, it reduces the waiting period before new members may game in a casino from 48 hours to 24 hours.
I will briefly explain the two changes. At present, casinos in England and Wales are not permitted to serve alcohol beyond midnight, although they may open until 4 a.m. That is because the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 allows licence extensions beyond midnight only for establishments offering live entertainment. Under the gaming legislation, casinos are prohibited from providing live entertainment. There are no plans to change this because entertainment could stimulate the demand for casino gambling.
Therefore the order allows casinos to apply for special hours certificates in the same way as other late night establishments, such as night-clubs. We do not expect this change to cause any problems. Casinos in Scotland have had extended liquor licensing hours since 1976 without any difficulties. As is the rule now, players will not be allowed to take alcohol onto the gaming floor. This merely allows casinos to offer the facilities which people expect to find in a late night establishment.
I now turn to the relaxation regarding the membership rule. Casinos in this country are subject to a strict regulatory regime. Many people have quite the wrong impression of what they are like, mainly because few people have been inside them. They are not at all like the casinos in Las Vegas with their rows of slot machines and cabaret acts. They are discreet establishments which provide mainly table and card games. Casinos here are not allowed to advertise and they are required to operate as members' clubs. You cannot walk off the street into a casino as you could into a night club, and they are closely supervised by the Gaming Board's inspectors.
The strict regime for casinos will remain, as they are places for hard gaming, but it is appropriate to relax slightly the rules on membership, reducing the waiting period from 48 hours to 24 hours.
At present if someone wants to game in a casino and they are not already a member or a guest of a member they have to apply for membership at the casino and wait 48 hours before they can participate in the gaming. This can mean that casinos, especially those in London, lose custom from tourists. The Government do not intend to change the club status of casinos but we have agreed that it would be reasonable for the waiting period to be reduced to 24 hours.
Both these changes have been the subject of extensive consultation and have the support of the Gaming Board, the Magistrates' Association and the police.
The Deregulation Committee in another place and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee have unanimously recommended that the order is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. The order provides sensible relaxation to rules on casinos. I am grateful—I hope—for noble Lords' support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committed—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, gaming is a euphemism; the word is "gambling". I can say that because gambling is the only vice that I do not have. I have never been inside a casino in this country although I have been to casinos in Las Vegas, to which the noble Earl referred. I am a little puzzled about the need for an extension of a licence to sell alcohol. Casinos in Las Vegas at any rate offer free drinks, including alcoholic drinks, in order that people can indulge their vice for gambling and to keep them doing so. Indeed, they offer food and sometimes free accommodation—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Where is this?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is in Las Vegas. If my noble friend Lord Graham wants to visit he can confirm the truth of what I say. Is the noble Earl saying it is necessary for casinos in this country to sell alcohol to the punters? I am surprised. Seriously, the law is a nonsense as it stands. Not being able to sell alcohol after midnight unless one provides live entertainment, and not being able to provide live entertainment if the establishment is a casino, is the classic case of catch-22. It is desirable that it should be removed by this order and we support it.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am sure the order is fine but I am puzzled. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I had a misspent youth and quite often visited casinos and betting shops. On every occasion when I speak in your Lordships' House and express surprise at the vision that is painted of these places, I am treated in a certain way. On one occasion I was described as "the dotty Peer" by one newspaper. I do not mind being called a dotty Peer as regards other areas, but in the area of casinos and betting shops, which I understand, I should like to think I am not dotty.
When I am told that entertainment stimulates gambling more than drink, I wonder where the architects of this measure have lived their lives. The only reason I am here now and not a bankrupt is probably because I did not drink when I gambled. If there had been more entertainment, perhaps I would have more money in my pocket now. As usual on gambling subjects—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right; we are talking about gambling—I am absolutely mystified about the thought processes underlying the measure.
Gambling in this country seems now to have gone beyond the old public policy of discouragement. In order to get the lottery through, we had to pretend that there was no public policy to discourage gambling—or what the noble Earl refers to as gaming. But matters have now changed. All that is required is sensible regulation of these places. By and large I think that betting shops are now reasonable places, although perhaps lacking bunches of flowers and groups of children happily gambolling, or gaming, about while their parents bet. Neither are casinos salubrious places
1466
where foregather the kind of people one would like to meet one's mother. However, since we have these places let us hope that the Government regulate them properly. But there is a lot of nonsense going on, is there not?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I have never been into a casino in this country. Therefore I have learned about them second hand. As regards drink and the selling of alcohol, premises can and do sell alcohol up to 12 o'clock; and a special hours certificate enables them to sell it up to three o'clock. I understand that drinks cannot be served at the table. People have to move away from the gambling tables to drink.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was concerned as to whether live entertainment would encourage or discourage people. He will correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps he will remind me of the point.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am delighted to continue along this line. I shall grasp any opportunity. I am saying that if you are gambling, whether playing blackjack, roulette or standing in a betting shop looking at the runners, if someone entertains you it will take you away from that form of betting for a while. Therefore I should have thought that entertainment is a good thing. If you drink while playing any gambling game, whether a respectable club game such as backgammon or poker, or in a casino, you get further into the world of unreality which is, after all, what is behind gambling. You are likely to lose everything you have, and more.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for repeating his comments. Casinos in this country are some of the most heavily regulated in Europe, if not in the world. They are generally, I think almost wholly, well run establishments. I do not think that the picture of people behaving badly or getting out of control is valid.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the noble Earl is most courteous in giving way. I did not wish to imply that that was the case. I said that what encourages or discourages gambling seems slightly out of focus in the reasoning underlying the order. People who run betting shops and gambling places are probably paragons of virtue. I do not go to them nowadays.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the explanation and thank noble Lords for their support. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Betting Licensing) Order 1997
2.30 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved [15th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to extend from one year to three years the duration of betting permits and licences. It has been scrutinised by both deregulation committees, which recommended minor amendments to the order, which has now been redrafted to the committees' satisfaction.
The main benefit of the order is that bookmakers will not have to apply every year for renewal of their permits and licences. The order contains a new power to cancel betting office licences. The committees were satisfied that the order contains sufficient protections for the betting public.
This is a modest deregulation measure which will relieve some of the red tape on the betting industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th January be approved [15th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl describes this as a modest measure. It is indeed. There is nothing wrong with it. However, last year we had another modest measure in relation to betting shops which referred to the angle of the television screen and whether it could be seen from the door. We are playing silly games with betting shops, are we not? We try to make them into places that are deliberately unattractive.
I have no desire to go into a betting shop, but this approach reminds me of when I was at university in the state of Ohio, where all spirits had to be sold by state liquor stores with blank windows. You went in through one door, went up to a counter and put in a slip saying that you wanted your whisky, gin or whatever it was. You then went to another counter and were given the whisky or gin carefully put into a brown paper bag, and you were supposed to slink out feeling guilty. I sometimes feel that the Government want people who go into betting shops to think like that. Why can we not have the proper deregulation of betting shops, and not do it slice by slice in this way?
The Viscount of Falkland: Oh dear, my Lords. Now we have gone down this track of betting, I shall merely say that I am quite sure there is nothing wrong with this order. I must say that I am jaundiced about the whole idea of betting shops—not because I think that those who run chains of betting shops are in any way reprehensible; it is just that betting shops happen to attract the least economically benefited in our society. I have always opposed the easy extension of hours and other matters to do with betting shops because, for those who are drawn into such places to follow their dreams of making money out of betting in whatever form they choose, they are not a good thing.
As I said during the course of our last debate on this matter, it is a pity that the public policy of not encouraging gambling was released so easily. If we can make sure that people do not get into trouble and do not find themselves in squalid situations where they are offered stolen goods and other things—which can
1468
happen in such places—all well and good. I hope that the picture painted of an improvement in this area is the case. However, wherever there is a possibility to gamble in this country, I am afraid that a lot of the most disadvantaged people will be found going to it like bees to a honeypot. That is just the way of the world.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, this betting licensing order, as I said, contains two main provisions: it extends the licence from one to three years, and introduces new powers to cancel betting office licences—that is, so far as the grounds for the cancelling of licences can be regarded as laying down the character and condition of the premises, whether or not they are suitable for use as a licensed betting office, and also whether the premises have been conducted properly under the licence.
In addition, there is a new power to cancel betting office licences if a betting shop has been left empty for a period of more than 12 months. I note the comments made by noble Lords. I commend the draft order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Cornish Economy
2.34 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the performance of the economy of Cornwall; and whether they will encourage the use of millennium funding for regeneration in the county.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise in advance to the House for the condition of my voice. It requires me to take what is an unusual step for me; namely, reading my speech word for word. If my voice gives up on me, I hope that with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Berkeley can stand up and take over from me.
Noble Lords may wonder why a lass from Lancashire is speaking up for the Celtic of Cornwall—or perhaps, as I am regarded in Cornwall, an "emmet", as the Cornish refer to foreigners. I am proud to take my title from my birthplace in Lancashire and a Lancashire lass I will always be. But in recent years I have made my home in a Cornish town, the historic harbour town of Falmouth. In that time I have come to realise that the south west and Cornwall in particular have been getting a very rough deal for far too long. The case I make for Cornwall is not for some special hand-out or pleading. It is for recognition that, if we are moving into an era of more regional and local communities and accountabilities, the Duchy of Cornwall has a very strong case indeed; not as Devon and Cornwall but as the Duchy itself in its own right, west of the Tamar River.
For the truth is that the economy of Cornwall is facing great difficulty. Cornwall has always suffered for its distance from the centre of government: a kind of geographical postscript to England is how many in

1469
Cornwall regard it. It is possibly a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Even today's better road and rail connections have not overcome that.
Every relevant economic indicator for Cornwall is at the wrong end of the scale. Unemployment is the highest for any county area in Britain and it is continuing to rise, even against the national trend. In January, when the overall national level fell to 7 per cent., in Cornwall it increased—the only county to do so—to a level of 9.2 per cent. In West Cornwall that rises to 11.3 per cent., in the towns of Helston, Camborne and Penzance. Since the publication of those January figures, some 300 jobs have been lost in the St. Ives Creamery in St. Erth, and another 300 have gone at English China Clay. Those two closures alone would put up the unemployment rate by at least 1 per cent., possibly 2 per cent.
Average earnings are some 20 per cent. less than the national average. The GDP per capita—a crucial overall measure of the economic welfare of any county—at 73 per cent. of the UK average is almost the lowest in the country. Unbelievable as it may sound, it is lower even than Merseyside.
On top of all this, the people of Cornwall have to grapple with the relatively poor public transport. The economy of Cornwall is as fragile as the landscape is dramatic and it is in a dire state. The unemployment figures reveal a steady decline in jobs in the primary sectors, such as agriculture, mining and fishing. There is but one tin mine left in Cornwall, grimly hanging on, having been rescued by hundreds of local people who bought shares to keep it alive.
Noble Lords will not need reminding of the difficulties of the fishing industry. Whole communities in Cornwall, in places like Newlyn and Looe, continue to depend upon fishing, but it is getting harder and harder and there is no alternative employment at the moment. The manufacturing base is relatively small. While there are many first-class companies in Cornwall, they are mostly small. Some 90 per cent. of all companies have fewer than 24 employees. Tourism is certainly an important employer, but it is seasonal and many of its jobs are part-time and low paid. At the same time, Cornwall's population is growing, above the national trend, fuelled by inward migration of working people and their children. Cornwall's population has grown by 13 per cent. since 1981, the fastest rate of growth after prosperous Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire.
Yet Cornwall still has one of the lowest percentages of its population in England economically active. There is also a high net outward migration of young people because there are no broadly-based higher education facilities at all in the county. That is a point to which I shall return later. Cornwall probably has the lowest population per square mile in the UK. No town has more than 20,000 people living in it. Those are worrying trends which present higher delivery costs in providing essential services like health, social services and the fire brigade. Yet that is not recognised in funding from central government.
Perhaps I may just give a snapshot of one ward in the area of Falmouth in which I live. Some 31 per cent. of the households are poor; 34 per cent. of all the children
1470
in that ward live in homes where no parent has a job and 23 per cent. of children live with a lone parent. Yet the privatised water industry of the south west has increased charges by 100 per cent. since privatisation compared with the national average of 39 per cent. We have to provide some hope for the future of the people of Cornwall. There is a huge backlog of low standard accommodation crying out for repair and renovation. Local authorities such as Carrick Council know of some 30,000 properties in the area which are in need of urgent attention. If we could get to work on those it would generate demand, provide jobs and give a real spin to the flywheel of the local economy.
Many of the statistics that I give to your Lordships are invisible to the politicians at both Brussels and Westminster. That is because Cornwall is lumped together for statistical purposes with Devon or, even worse, with the south west. The distorted picture shows a highly prosperous region with above average level of wealth and below average unemployment. Why is that? It is because Wiltshire, for instance, with only 3.5 per cent. unemployment, is included with data for Cornwall and the south west. Yet it is nearly 250 miles from Penzance to Swindon, which is further from London than my own county of Lancashire. I cannot imagine Lancashire accepting that it should be lumped in with London. The purpose of this Question is to reduce that invisibility and put Cornwall's special problems on the map in their own right—but not with special pleading.
I should mislead your Lordships' House if I did not also point to some of the good news from Cornwall. There are many excellent firms, including substantial exporters, in high technology and niche markets, although most of them are small and do not employ large numbers. The county attracts some 3½ million visitors a year—more, I believe, than the whole of Scotland. Cornwall's tourism industry has many strengths, although it receives under £½ million from the West Country Tourist Board. Scotland, attracting fewer tourists, receives £16.9 million annually. Think of what could be done in Cornwall with that kind of money.
The education service is good. Cornwall has higher than national average GCSE results. The county council's local education authority received a recent glowing report from the Ofsted inspectorate. There is a fine dual carriageway from the M5 at Exeter and what I call passport control to Bodmin. It replaces the old, tortuous A30 over Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. I congratulate the Government on announcing completion of the A30 upgrade by agreeing to the completion of the Goss Moor section. But, I respectfully ask the Minister, when will it happen? I hope that the Minister can tell me when it will be started and when it is expected to be completed.
Road access is important to any inward investor. It is among the top three questions any investor asks. Can the Minister say if there is an early plan to upgrade what must surely be the only 14 foot 3 inch high bridge on any trunk road in the United Kingdom? It is a nightmare. It is essential that that bridge is widened and raised.
Cornwall's own-generated In Pursuit of Excellence initiative has brought together people from all the various interest groups in the county. It has galvanised people to work together for the recognition of excellence. It includes many of Cornwall's smaller businesses. South West Enterprise—again for small companies—is doing a grand job. But there is no Cornwall redevelopment agency specially for the county. I understand that my noble friend Lord Graham may well refer to regional development and I await with interest his contribution.
The people of Cornwall are doing what they can to help themselves. But what your Lordships have just heard is not good enough. It needs a kick start and a few big projects to act as catalysts for economic growth. There too, the county is trying to help itself.
I would like to mention three key projects. The first is the Exeter University initiative, which is essential because there is such a paucity of higher education provision in Cornwall. Of course, in Falmouth, we have the excellent Falmouth College of Art and Design, which is nationally recognised for the quality of work it does. But that is not enough. As noble Lords will recognise, it does not provide higher education across a board range of subjects. In fact, there is no higher education provision in Cornwall that provides that broad range from within Cornwall.
Exeter University provides a wide range and the project, if millennium funds are forthcoming, will facilitate an international institution in the county. Exeter will move all its activities in Cornwall, including the Camborne School of Mines, into a new campus at Trereife just outside Penzance. Penrith district council, the local authority, despite tight funding, has voted the £1 million which is needed to purchase the site. It will create 300 new jobs directly and at least another 240 in the community. There will be 5,000 students, full-time and part-time, on that new campus. It is essential that the Millennium Commission gives its answer this summer if that year 2000 deadline is to be met.
The second initiative is the Eden project, an imaginative initiative, which is a development for science and research to investigate man's dependence on plant life. It will be a major visitor centre and will provide innovative research and a splendid educational establishment of worldwide significance. The third initiative is the planned move to Falmouth of the National Maritime Museum's small boat collection, a project which will bring visitors into Falmouth and create jobs in the area.
All three initiatives will be immensely important catalysts and must not be allowed to fail. Each is going through the complex hoops of seeking to secure lottery and EU funding. On this point, in a county with some 90 per cent. of businesses employing not more than 24 people, cannot some way be found whereby "in kind" factors, such as work and time, can be agreed to be a part of what is defined as matching funding? It is a serious point for Cornwall. Small and medium-sized enterprises usually have few funds to spare to give by way of grants. There are no FT 100 businesses in
1472
Cornwall to help with funding. There are branches, yes, but money is quite often concentrated where the company head office is.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that her colleagues in another place who have responsibility for these areas, especially the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, will do all they can to ensure that these projects do not fail.
Finally, I call on the Minister to ensure that there remains a strong floor of EU regional funding for Cornwall. The present objective programme is good, but many projects are having difficulty because of the complexities. I welcome the Government's commitment to seek "NUTS 2" status within the EC so that Cornwall can have its own discrete statistics recorded and published so that they are not lost in the wider prosperous south west. I would welcome such an assurance from the Government on regional funds which are to be renegotiated in 1999, but perhaps I should address that question to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who no doubt will be in a position in a few weeks' time to give me those assurances.
Cornwall needs symbols for the future. The Exeter University plan is one; the Eden project and the Falmouth project are others. We need less rhetoric and more action. The people and their representatives are prepared to do what they can to help themselves. We need central government to take their fair share.
2.48 p.m.
Lord Saint Levan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for calling attention to the performance of the economy in Cornwall. After she has spoken so forcefully in our favour, I can assure her that if she comes to Cornwall again no one will call her emmet.
I really should be in Par this afternoon in the heart of the English China Clay district where my wife is opening a new Marie Curie cancer care office, but I am very grateful that the noble Baroness has persuaded the House to debate the economy of Cornwall.
As the noble Baroness said, it is evident that, as a result of a report on property in Cornwall in the 1990s, prepared by Bristol University, on a very wide range of indications Cornwall is a very deprived county. These include low weekly earnings, high rates of unemployment and, in the remote rural areas, lack of good transport facilities and even medical and education opportunities. However, the environment in Cornwall is now very favourable for a dynamic expansion of business in the country. There is a proven record of successful companies trading profitably in Cornwall at the moment.
One problem is that industrial land in Cornwall requires substantial public investment in infrastructure. The private sector cannot make profits with such a heavy bill for roads and sewers. An example of that is Hayle harbour which, after much effort and many false dawns, still lies derelict. The difference between funding for Wales, Scotland and Cornwall has been mentioned by the noble Baroness. I believe that it is a hangover

1473
from the days when Wales and Scotland themselves were facing very serious social challenges, particularly in the coal mining industry and in Clyde shipbuilding.
I am responsible for a number of the jobs in the tourist industry and it does not seem to me to be at all fair that last year the West Country Tourist Board received only £400,000 from the Government for the whole of the south west, whereas Scotland received over £16 million and Wales nearly £15 million. Also, as the noble Baroness said, it is clearly wrong that statistically Cornwall should be linked with Devon and even further afield.
Over the past fortnight all of us in Cornwall have been deeply shocked by the recent loss of 307 jobs at the St. Ivel creamery at St. Erth and the 300 redundancies announced by English China Clay. We were pleased that a delegation from Cornwall, including Members of Parliament and county and district councillors, was so well received by the Government Minister for the south west, David Curry. As my local newspaper the Cornishman said, they were pushing at an open door. It was particularly good news that the Devon and Cornwall Enterprise Council would be given the necessary resources for the training of men and women for alternative jobs. It was also good that funding would he provided to replace the business advisers who have recently been axed from the business advisory service of the Rural Development Commission, which has traditionally funded money into rural areas.
It is very sad that the successful services for businesses in rural areas, until now provided by the Rural Development Commission, will not be reinstated. I hope that Ministers will reconsider that. It is not easy to see where new jobs will be found, especially for skilled workers from the St. Ivel creamery. The greatest demand for jobs and vacancies comes from the hotel and catering section, with much lower wages and less security.
As the noble Baroness said, the primary industries in Cornwall—agriculture, mining and fishing—have all suffered in the numbers employed. The biggest provision of alternative employment might come from the small businesses employing fewer than 10 people. There is a predominance of small businesses in Cornwall. It is important that these firms should receive assistance from the Devon and Cornwall TEC.
I would strongly urge Ministers that, if jobs are to be protected in small businesses in Cornwall, additional funding will be vital in the future. I have personal experience of the value of help provided by the Training and Enterprise Council. I am a director of a company with electrical and television shops all over Cornwall. Due to the recession and the competition of out-of-town new shopping developments, we were very concerned about the future of the company and probable redundancies and loss of jobs. We consulted the Devon and Cornwall TEC for independent advice, and the advice, for a nominal fee, was of great value.
I understand that Ministers are fully aware of the lack of available factory units in Cornwall. Perhaps English Partnership is the only agency with the necessary financial structure to address this problem. I hope that
1474
the Government will encourage English Partnership under its Factories First Initiative Scheme to build factories and develop industrial land. Eight hectares in Restormel and six acres in Penzance are required immediately to replace lost jobs.
Local authorities have done a magnificent job in designating specific areas of land for new factories. In Cornwall there is a large amount of land which is derelict and ripe for reclamation.
As I live close to the fishing port of Newlyn and am on the committee of the Fishermen's Mission, perhaps I may advise your Lordships that the problems that have been debated previously in your Lordships' House are still of great concern. It is important that the entire process of quota hopping should be resolved for the benefit of British industry before we have the intergovernmental conference.
Ministers are right to think that Cornwall has in the past received considerable help from regional funds and there are grounds for hope of a less gloomy economic situation in the future. It should be remembered that high-speed InterCity trains in the south west were first introduced in the late 1970s. Since bus deregulation, "Hoppa" buses provide a much better service to remote rural areas. The county planning officer pointed out in his comments on the revised county structure plan that in the 1960s there were virtually no dual carriageways in Cornwall, but now, in the 1990s, many of the main towns of Cornwall have been bypassed. There has been a large increase in private car ownership. There have been massive improvements to the A.30 and the A.38 roads. We had a debate some time ago in your Lordships' House on the Okehampton bypass when many speeches were made in favour of it. That bypass has been of enormous benefit to farmers and other businesses in Cornwall.
There have also been considerable benefits to Cornwall from European grants. I often think that the commemorative signs put up on completion of a scheme financed by funding from Europe are far too modest. Perhaps there could be larger and more prominent displays. However, the forms are difficult to complete for applicants and many of us cannot find the necessary matching funds. It is not only important—it is vital—that the Government should support Cornwall County Council's bid to be classified separately from Devon for European funding. Such a classification would give Cornwall the highest rate of European economic support.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about the campaign "In Pursuit of Excellence". It has done a good job in encouraging wealth creation in Cornwall. Much has been done to increase awareness of Cornwall as a place for sound business investment. "In Pursuit of Excellence" is doing a marvellous job persuading people of the tremendous advantages of doing business in Cornwall. Cornwall's manufacturing base accounts for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product. Many companies in Cornwall can boast of considerable success in exporting their products. Exporting is vital for any successful economy. The Duchy of Cornwall education award scheme is encouraging school and

1475
college students to become involved with the wider business community. The campaign particularly wants more funds to enable Cornish companies to promote their wares at world trade fairs. I believe that other countries provide such help.
I am personally involved in tourism and farming in Cornwall on which a very considerable number of jobs depend. The future prosperity of those industries is, to say the least, extremely precarious in Cornwall. I have been at two meetings of farmers recently when two separate bank managers warned that the relative prosperity of the past four years may not continue even without taking into account the problems of BSE. The future of farmers growing early potatoes and vegetables in west Cornwall is even more uncertain. We have had two bad seasons due to the weather. Even with the help of the new farm marketing co-operatives, it is difficult to see how it will be possible to be paid reasonable prices when the buyers for the supermarkets are buying so much produce from abroad. In the recent frost which lasted 10 days in Cornwall, it was said that they were even importing vegetables from America. That is, of course, a commercial problem over which Ministers have no control, but it does highlight the precarious situation of the Cornish economy.
We have experienced two good years for tourism due to good weather and the magnificent work done to promote tourism in Cornwall by the tourist boards and the Cornish Association of Tourist Attractions. However, I am worried that we now have to rely on foreign visitors as such a large proportion of the visitors' trade. We rely particularly on the Dutch and Germans. The number of foreign visitors can suddenly drop without warning due to currency fluctuations, changes in holiday habits or competition from cheap package holidays, particularly to Turkey and South America. Last week I was informed of one minor case involving a fall in income from German visitors. The YMCA in Penzance relies to a very large extent on German students. Last year there were a number of cancellations. The reason given was that their mothers were afraid that they might inadvertently eat British beef disguised as hamburgers or Cornish pasties.
There may be good arguments in favour of the minimum wage for part-time workers in tourism, but there is no doubt that it will cause employers a few headaches as well as inconvenience from the measures and regulations contained in the social chapter. I suggest that without greatly increased funding for tourism in Cornwall there is a real danger of a large loss of jobs. The jobs may not be well paid but part-time work suits a good number of families with children or those where both partners are working. There is undoubtedly an enormous amount of poverty in Cornwall behind the tourist image of well-kept villages and beautiful countryside. I am president of Cornwall Church Action for the Unemployed which, together with the Duke of Cornwall's Princes Trust and Church Action on Poverty, tries to help people in ways that bureaucracy cannot reach. The Bishop of St. Germans has organised a conference in St. Austell next March to give
1476
unemployed and socially deprived people a chance to talk about their lives to policymakers on the county council and other local authorities.
As the noble Baroness said, the worst problems are the price of electricity and the fact that water bills have gone up by 100 per cent. There is also a problem of affordable rural housing. It is sad that local authorities do not have the funds to enable housing associations to build and rent affordable homes. In my own district of west Cornwall the local authority is free of debt and is doing a magnificent job with money from council house sales. At present I believe that three housing association projects are under way. I hope that Ministers can do more to encourage housing associations. It is hard to see how affordable accommodation for local people can be provided by the private sector. I own a number of cottages that are occupied by pensioners or low-paid workers. The cost of repairs, insurance and management means that there is a considerable annual deficit that I must fund out of other income.
The question that is asked is whether the Government have done enough for the economy of Cornwall and, if not, whether more millennium funds should be released to Cornwall. Obviously, the very exciting Eden Project that is before the Millennium Commission would be a vital boost to visitors to Cornwall and would create many well-paid jobs in the St. Austell area. The Millennium Commission also has an important proposal for a university for Cornwall. The plan for a university has widespread support from all political parties in Cornwall. I hope that it will be actively supported by the Government. Cornwall has excellent sixth form and technical colleges but a vocational campus would greatly improve the county's educational base. Far too many young people leave Cornwall for higher education in other parts of the country. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Exeter has said that at the moment the greatest need is for a commitment to provide capital. Once someone starts, others will follow. We also need an early decision on funding from the National Lottery and European sources.
In my view, the Minister for the south west has been very effective in pressing the case for the economic regeneration of Cornwall. I believe that the Government's heart is in the right place so far as concerns Cornwall, but I hope that some of the questions that are raised in this debate will receive very serious consideration.
3.4 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this Question exposes a raw nerve. People in Cornwall are disadvantaged, with the GDP gap between it and other parts of the United Kingdom becoming more acute. The only question is: what can be done about it? Support for positive action comes from all quarters. The Lord Lieutenant, Lady Mary Holborow, mindful of any political divide, rightly feels that,
"Cornwall with its high unemployment and very low weekly earnings really needs to be looked at as a special case like Wales and the Highlands of Scotland".

1477
An acclaimed recent study by Plymouth University concluded:
"Cornwall is a problem county in a prosperous region. Crossing the border between Devon and Cornwall is like falling off an economic cliff."
Supporting figures, caused by Cornwall losing so many of its traditional industries, are on the record and indisputable. I shall not dwell therefore on existing ground but consider differing approaches to rectify the situation.
That has to come as a mixture of public funds and private investment to revitalise the local economy, combined with expansion of the tourism industry at, I believe, the quality end, and equally as important, implementation of the two substantial projects, the Eden project at St. Austell and the University project at Penzance, both by millennium and European structural funding.
Before dealing with the specifics, however, I wish to add my voice to the vital matter of delinking European regional classification of Cornwall from its wealthier neighbour, Devon. There is a hidden imbalance that must be corrected to enable grant-aid to flow directly to Cornwall and so allow an economic level playing field.
Campaigning must start now, in face of possible opposition from Brussels, as the European Union is set to redefine its regional boundaries post-1999 and so identify areas of special need. An altered designation would not only give Cornwall access to a larger budget but also permit projects to qualify for a 75 per cent. grant rather than just the 50 per cent. at present. Will the Minister please give an assurance today that it will press hard for the case? Indeed, Mr. Robin Teverson, the local MEP must also be encouraged to negotiate, after the national consultation stage, with Eurostat and the European Commission. Success would go a long way towards correcting the economic imbalance for Cornwall, for I have seen at first hand the extraordinary transformation of a region's fortunes through Brussels intervention.
Other key issues need also to be addressed by government. We have already heard of some of these this afternoon. The delays in improving the spine road, the A.30, to include dualling and rebridging at Goss Moor, remain a missing link in Cornwall's continued infrastructure improvement and are a major concern and deterrent to some investors.
Appreciably increased distribution costs are generated by up to one hour additional transport time on eastbound traffic by needing to divert high-cube lorries around the bridge. That is not helpful and needs urgently to be addressed. Commercial traffic must contend in addition with horrendous traffic through the summer when distribution operations must compete with the tourist deluge. Why are the Government unwilling to accelerate that project? There has been unanimous support since pre-planning meetings as far back as 1994. The scheme needs to advance.
Will the Government please commit to making the bridge top priority for funding once the decision is made; and, secondly, ensure that the railway issue does not hinder the road development. I am sure that it
1478
has not escaped the Minister's attention that there are two Tory marginals being contested in the upcoming election so what better time than today for an announcement?
There is potential for great cause for concern over the continuation of the Newquay to London air link. Currently the plan is to move the slots away from Heathrow to Gatwick, which probably affects Plymouth more than Newquay; but there is a reliance on continuing service from Plymouth to keep the Newquay service viable. What can the Government do to ensure that the Plymouth to London link remains open, and, ideally, will they use their good-offices to allow the service to remain at Heathrow?
I now want to turn to an emotive subject—the question of government incentives for attracting employment from one region to another. I should like to know why Wales has been such an apparent increased beneficiary of grants over Cornwall—up to three times the value, I understand?
I am tempted to ask for a costing of a hypothetical scenario. I shall not. But what I do ask, however, is this: what are the criteria and why is Wales such an apparent disproportionate beneficiary? What is the policy between regions for work-creation funding? A fair distribution of grants around the regions must be the right and just approach. Current policy suggests a certain iniquity. I shall wait for the Minister's reply before passing final judgment, but would point out that whatever it is Wales is doing needs to be replicated.
In the grander scheme, there are other matters which also need to be addressed. Improving the supplier base required to support investors by resourcing locally and so enable them to grow into world-class companies, is important. This can be achieved through education addressing and reducing the long-term skill shortages needed to support business growth and would require high quality training in contemporary business theories and best practices along with a dynamic link to industry.
As a point of strategy, there are some who say that there are too many fragmented groups promoting Cornwall, creating a co-ordination problem, and that what is needed is a well thought through strategy backed by a single voice—a one-stop shop. One of the big questions is whether it is feasible for Cornwall to have its own development agency, or whether it should continue to combine with Devon to have critical mass, or, to put it in the words of Sir John Banham,
"to be a large enough blip to be on the radar".
I accept fully that Devon and Cornwall can be marketed jointly, but the important factor is that there must be a coherent Cornish strategy forming part of a wider promotion in overseas markets.
While the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and Mr. Matthew Taylor, during his recent adjournment debate in another place, should be thanked for their respective initiatives in highlighting the many difficulties facing Cornwall, it should not be forgotten that there is also good news—not least Cornwall itself.
The peninsular represents some of the best that Britain has to offer with multiple needs being fulfilled. There is, for example, a willing, reliable and affordable

1479
workforce not known for industrial problems; many suitable cost competitive facilities and sites; government funding assistance and a commitment at least to continually improving infrastructure. There are also excellent standards of education, notwithstanding concerns as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, recreation and hospitals. Indeed, I had occasion to spend the weekend before last at the Duchy Hospital in Truro for a minor operation and can testify to the dedication, professionalism and general approach which, with regret, is now not so often found in this hectic world in which we live.
Nevertheless, I believe that we must balance the undeniable case for special assistance for Cornwall with believing that the news is necessarily all doom and gloom. There would be something inherently wrong if Cornwall could not attract more than its fair share of foreign direct investment; after all, the United Kingdom is second to the United States in investment volume, with 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Union coming to our shores. There is still an increasing realisation for the need by foreign companies to have a direct presence in the European Union.
I would, however, caution those responsible in such matters to be aware that enlargement of the Union will bring increased competition, because exactly what Cornwall has to offer will also be offered by many others. Cornwall, nevertheless, provides a perfect springboard to organisations offering financial services, data processing, telephone communications or any other high value added industry. They need look no further than Cornwall for their European or domestic corporate offices. Post deliveries to London and the Continent take no longer than if posting from Windsor or Cardiff; and the telephone network gives competitive world-wide access.
All the more reason for my disappointment to hear this week of Virgin Intercity creating 300 jobs for a call centre in Edinburgh in connection with its rail link which terminates at Penzance. If I were more directly involved, I would certainly look for an explanation from those responsible in the south west as to the reasons why. This type of job creation would have lent itself ideally to Cornwall.
Given these uncertain political times with the upcoming election, I want to encourage the Labour camp also to defend some of its stated policies. Clearly the emotive subject of the minimum wage might shortly raise its head. This is a delicate question, not least because pitching it at the wrong level would do uncountable damage to the Cornish economy. My Lords, how will that be dealt with?
Will a future Labour government continue to have a Minister responsible for south west affairs? The Government have clearly shown their commitment to the area by creating such a post. The Labour party has said it would restore business rates to local control. Will there be a proper system of equalisation to reflect Cornwall's small business base measured against needs? That is important, for without it the policy could be a disaster for Cornwall. I understand that new unified business rates are as much as 30 to 40 per cent.
1480
higher than, say, sites outside Birmingham. And lastly, Mr. Frank Dobson, the shadow environment spokesman, has attacked what he determines is the iniquity of the grant system that seems to give Westminster City so much. The point behind that is that visitors' nights, on which Westminster scores highly, and arguably unfairly, is crucial for Cornwall with its 25 million visitors' nights per annum. A policy which attacks Westminster that affects Cornwall could be a nightmare scenario.
In conclusion, Cornwall is not looking for a special deal, just a fair deal and so in that spirit I have no doubt that I shall return to this matter, failing hearing positive news from the Minister; but, in the meantime, I am off to traipse the spectacular rugged clifftop walk between Port Isaac and Port Quin.
3.17 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for giving us the opportunity to speak about Cornwall. My late father, who was not a frequent speaker in your Lordships' House, made his maiden speech, I think in 1964, on the subject of the economy of Cornwall. I recall that he had an excellent brief from the English China Clay Company. I tried to dig that out in the short time available before the debate but the precarious ladder and the time available made it seem too risky. I am not such a gambler as that.
I have spent a good deal of time in Cornwall. My father lived there. I am a Devonian and my mother was a Lancastrian. My Devon roots come from just two miles inside the Devon border at St. Giles-on-the-Heath, which is two miles from Launceston.
Cornwall is a remarkable county. I was fascinated by it as a boy. It has extremes of landscape. It has the most extraordinary variations of climate—10 degrees in January between the north and south coast. It produces flowers and vegetation the like of which are not seen anywhere else in the British Isles. You can see hydrangeas, myrtle, azaleas and rhododendrons of a kind and a size unequalled.
As the noble Baroness will know, Cornish people are very particular. They are extremely independent-minded and articulate, very much like the Welsh. They are very fond of singing. However, when my father lived in Fowey, I found that on one side of Fowey were the people who had settled in Cornwall; for example, people who had retired from the Army and so on. To see the true Cornish, you had to go to the other side of the river, to the pubs and so on, to hear the singing. Sometimes, you would have thought that you were in Wales, hearing the quality of the singing. The Celtic language of Cornwall is of the same type as that spoken in Brittany and Wales. I am glad to say that in recent times, probably over the past 20 years, more people speak Cornish than they did 30 or 40 years ago.
On these Benches, I am somewhat Euro-sceptical in many regards but if I could be optimistic I believe that if Europe progresses in the way that we all hope it will, Cornwall may do rather well within a closer Europe. If you go across the Channel to the northern coast of France there is an extraordinary difference. Cornwall is

1481
a very poor county; indeed, it has an unemployment level of 25 per cent.—the same as some of the poorest parts of Europe. Britain has a very high unemployment level. Yet along the coast of Brittany, which faces Cornwall on the other side of the Channel, you will find a greater concentration of its peculiar qualities and of its history and tradition than exists in Cornwall which resembles it in so many ways.
At some stage in the not too distant future—I agree with other speakers in this respect—I hope that Cornwall will be viewed as the unique county that it is, not only for statistical purposes but also for other purposes. I fear that tourism in Cornwall is somewhat overemphasised. The noble Baroness and I may disagree in that respect. The great influx of tourists into Cornwall took place because of people's ability to take paid holidays, and so on. They went down to Devon and Cornwall, bringing about an enormous change in the coastal area and creating a huge hotel trade. However, with the growth of tourism in Europe and the advent of cheap travel, many people whose mothers and fathers might have gone to Cornwall and Devon go instead to Spain, Portugal, Malta and so on.
Cornwall has a most unique geology and history. After all, in Cornwall you will probably find more prehistoric items of interest than anywhere else in the British Isles and you will see more unspoiled battlefields, or unchanged battlefields, from the time when such battles took place. Noble Lords will recall that during the Civil War Cornwall was uniquely Royalist for a long period thanks to two extremely gay—that is, "gay" in the old-fashioned sense of the word—and dashing cavaliers, Sir Ralph Hopton and Sir Bevil Grenville who finally capitulated when they could not agree as to who was the most senior of them at Pendennis Castle, which I believe is close to where the noble Baroness lives. There was also the extraordinary march from Cornwall in the 15th century to protest against the tax to levy money for the Scottish wars. The Cornish were only stopped at Blackheath which gave an enormous fright to the throne at that time.
Cornish tin mining has been of long duration. I am not sure whether the relationship with the Phoenicians is not slightly apocryphal. There is good evidence to show that there was trade with the Phoenecians as early documents from that part of the world refer to the "tin island"; and, indeed, many think that Lundy Island may be that island. Certainly, the Romans found no opposition when they invaded Cornwall and, as recorded in contemporary documents, were surprised to find the people industrious, articulate and prosperous. The Saxons invaded Cornwall and pretty well laid the place to waste, so that at the time of the Norman conquest one finds very little of what might be called a co-ordinated Cornish identity.
Cornwall has an extraordinary history. From the tourism point of view, I would suggest that it needs to be regarded as a high, added-value area. I say that because the kind of things that it offers are irreplaceable but require much effort as opposed to just lying on a beach, playing golf or doing the things that people do as laudable pastimes. There is so much more in Cornwall. That is why I support the noble Baroness in
1482
the millennium project—the Question on the Order Paper mentions "millennium funding"—for a University of Cornwall. That is an excellent idea; I hope that the Government will support it. Not only would it bring employment to Cornwall; it would also provide an additional opportunity for people to go into further education. It would also offer the possibility of concentrating on selling the unique character of Cornwall.
This is all a case of looking to the future and at long-term possibilities. Quite rightly, if Cornish people should hear of this debate they will wonder why I am taking such a long-term view when at this moment people in Cornwall are suffering from high unemployment. I am told that the air link between Heathrow and Cornwall may not exist for much longer. If that happens, companies will have to think twice about establishing themselves in Cornwall. The loss of the air link would be an enormous deterrent to executives travelling to Cornwall.
Like the noble Baroness, I am glad that the Government have agreed that the A.30 needs to be further improved, but when will that happen? Cornwall has much to offer which, in my view, has been under-exploited and under-developed. It has a peculiar and rich culture and heritage to offer tourists as well as others. Within the medium and long term it must offer food for thought for those who seriously want to develop this region of Europe which has enormous value. I am a Devonian but I must admit that Cornwall probably has more going for it than Devon. Devon is a richer county in any case. I hope that the unique character of Cornwall will be recognised.
I hope that the statistical classification will take place. We and the Cornish can then focus around the university and its activities. The other millennium project, the Eden Project, is interesting. I believe one newspaper described it as the largest greenhouse in the world. There is no better place for it. It is unbelievable how plants flourish in Cornwall. Of course many of the plants used in the project will be grown under glass if it were to go ahead. That would draw an enormous amount of higher added value tourism to Cornwall. I am sure that it would be a case of higher added value rather than high volume, small margin business which has destroyed so much of the hotel trade in the western peninsular. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a real Cornish pasty.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes.
The Viscount of Falkland: I am not surprised. The noble Lord, as we know, is something of a gourmet. A Cornish pasty is an extremely expensive thing to make. It requires special meat, special potatoes, special pastry and special herbs. Various people have tried to create small businesses to export them but that has been difficult because of the high overheads and their inability with under-capitalisation to develop the market. But there are many such things that are special to Cornwall, both as regards food and other areas.
What better place is there for large horticultural projects than the extreme west of Cornwall? One would expect daffodils to be grown there but there are many

1483
other possibilities. Cornwall has been linked with other counties. That has been done for perfectly good reasons but it does not work to link Cornwall with other counties in the western peninsular. They all have their particular needs and problems. I repeat that Cornwall is special. I am sure that if it were developed it would yield great profits. As the noble Baroness knows, there are many educated, able and lively people in Cornwall—as, I am sure, there are Lancastrians—who are able to develop these ideas and promote an under-used British asset.
All the other points about Cornwall have been mentioned. It is a shame that English China Clay is laying off people. I do not know the reason. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will be able to tell us. The china clay is peculiar to Cornwall. The curious granite structure was caused by eruptive activity millions of years ago. It created the extraordinary kaolinisation which produced this quality material. The material comes mostly from Par where, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan, should be this afternoon. It is sad that English China Clay, upon which the Cornish people have depended for so long, should be laying off people.
I am optimistic about Cornwall because, like most Celtic people, the Cornish are lively and imaginative. Given the opportunity, I am sure that they can overcome the problems, making Cornwall again the most extraordinary area.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, having heard the earlier contributions, I began to think that I had stumbled into a warm, family-like debate. In her able introduction my noble friend Lady Dean introduced the debate without a trace of political malice. She recognised, as do many others, that in such issues the people of Cornwall will get nowhere if they mount a political charger and accuse either one political party or another of reneging on commitments or forgetfulness. This afternoon we have had a first-class demonstration of a Back Bencher in this House seizing the opportunities which our procedures allow to discuss her concerns about a local issue. She has pitched the debate at the right level.
No one sought to blame unduly either governments or circumstances. I shall not depart from that path. Yet at the end of the day the message given concerns the sense of unfairness felt. The people of Cornwall have done no wrong and have done no harm, yet they seem to have got the dirty end of the stick compared with others.
I wish to add a few words of support for the case for fairness. I begin, as have most noble Lords, by parading credentials for speaking in a debate on Cornwall. From 1943 to 1945 I served as a member of the Royal Marines. Between the three depots of Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, I had the good fortune to be allocated to Plymouth. I was Plymouth rating, PLYX 112105, corporal, and proud of it. I tramped many a mile out of Plymouth over the bridge into Cornwall, and began to love the place, especially when I found the orchards full at a certain time of the year. The people
1484
were hospitable and I was made very welcome. Sadly, the last time I visited Cornwall was on my way to the Isles of Scilly for the funeral of my late and still lamented former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Every speaker has professed a deep love of the people and the place.
However, on behalf of the Labour Party I have a duty warmly to welcome the possibility that the Government—whether it is this Government or another—recognise that there are as many disparities in this country as there are between those who live in the third world and the developed world. There are disparities between those who live in the luckier parts of Britain and those who live in the less lucky parts. Life in Cornwall certainly does not appear to be fair. The nagging thought that I have is that the talent, skill and natural resources of the place that we call Cornwall and the people we call Cornish men and women are being wasted. I do not necessarily mean with a capital "W"; they may not be wasted entirely. However, it must concern all of us as politicians that there are communities who resent the fact that they do not receive an equitable share of what is going.
I could relate a great many of the statistics, but they have all been given. I repeat, I speak without malice and without making political points. I should certainly never accuse the Government of neglecting Cornwall. I know that they have created not merely a series of initiatives and structures, but that they genuinely wish to see that those initiatives are well and truly supported.
I very much enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Levan. He knows far more about Cornish people and places than I and many others here do. I say to the noble Lord with the deepest respect that a Member of this House listening to another Member speaking from the heart recognises that that is where his remarks come from. They do not come from a brief, a newspaper article, a cutting or a request from someone to make a point. When one hears someone who speaks from the heart one recognises that, and the contribution is all the greater.
The noble Lord convinced me by his references to tourism, farming and fishing—the three fields in which he modestly claimed to play a part in the county of Cornwall—that much is wrong. There is much for those affected to grieve about, not least economically. The case has been made that economic life is not the only life in Cornwall or any other place. There is history, pride and ambition. And from the remarks of my noble friend Lady Dean I see that there is a determination to try to get the Government to act a little more fairly and urgently.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, convinced me that he is an enthusiast, that he cared and that he was concerned about the issue. The noble Viscount also appreciated the benefit of the debate in putting on record some of the proposals that he wanted. He was a fine advocate. He left me with one or two points with which I shall now deal.
The problem that the Labour Party sees in relation to the Government's initiatives is that they lack democracy. They lack a contribution or input from the

1485
people themselves. Over the past 17 years the Government have been very good at trying to put right things that need to be put right. I served on a London local authority for many years. I was involved with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the legislation out of which stemmed the urban development corporations. In retrospect, it rode roughshod over the democratic shambles at that time and succeeded in creating an economic instrument which, with hindsight 16 years later, has been for the good.
We also know that the Government have introduced a tier of regional government, including 10 powerful government offices in the regions. They are headed by regional directors. Incidentally, the CBI calls those directors "prefects". They co-ordinate the work of four major government departments: the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department of the Environment; the Department of Transport; and that part of the Department for Education and Employment that was formerly under the Department of Employment.
However, as in many respects, the Government may be getting a job done, but they are not getting the job done. They are spending £60 billion of public money through quangos, and it may be money well spent but it has not been well spent to the extent that there has been little contribution from local councils, public bodies and so on.
What the Labour Party wants to see in the future is a great deal more than that. Labour will strengthen the role of development agencies in Scotland and Wales and establish a network of regional development agencies in each English region, building on existing initiatives. It will empower them to work with venture capital funds to provide small business finance through public/private partnerships.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is here, because she entertained us earlier today on the subject of late payments. That is one of the problems that bedevils small businesses, as she well knows. I picked up the statistic that 90 per cent. of the businesses in Cornwall employ 24 or fewer employees. That is extraordinary. So small business needs encouragement. It will not get much from the statement made by Michael Heseltine, who admitted that he was quite skilful in stringing creditors along. We need to stop that attitude and encourage governments—even though government departments are guilty of paying 5 per cent. of their bills late or very late.
What the Government can do for the people of Cornwall, in my view, is to consider carefully the case made by my noble friend Lady Dean, particularly on the initiatives raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned the minimum wage and its effect on people and the economy. He is right, of course. That is why, when the Labour Party introduces the minimum wage, it will be sensitive. There will not be one day when it is not there and one day when it is; there will be consultation. One needs to take differing circumstances in different parts of the country into account.
The noble Viscount quite rightly raised the point that an attempt to deal with inequity in Westminster may rebound on the people of Cornwall. Of course one will
1486
need to take that into account. One needs to be fair to the people of Cornwall when trying to deal with another problem. I should certainly ensure that that is the case.
On the question of the business rate coming under local control, all such matters are policies which will be put into practice, but not willy-nilly. It cannot be the object of any government's policy to destroy something which exists. I say to the Minister that it would not be the job of an incoming Labour Government simply to look at what is in place and say: "Out, out, out". One must recognise that the present Government have a great deal to their credit in dealing with such matters.
We in the Labour Party are delighted that a small place like Cornwall has so many advocates in this House. The people of Cornwall will want to hear not necessarily that there are immediate solutions at hand to their problems, but that there are people who might be able to influence decisions. Members of your Lordships' House have heard powerful advocates for the people of Cornwall this afternoon. I believe that the people of Cornwall can rest content after today that the case made will not be lost. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say which will be of encouragement not least to the people of Cornwall but also in other areas like Cornwall throughout the country.
We are a rich country in comparison with many others, but we need to recognise, even inside a rich country like Britain, that there are pockets of discontent, places which have not been dealt with fairly. I hope that the Minister will congratulate all speakers this afternoon and also give us some hope. Let us pray.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, on initiating this short debate and on the interest that she has shown in the future prosperity of the County of Cornwall. She said at the start that she wanted to put Cornwall on the map. She has undoubtedly done that with her usual clearness, conciseness and, if I may say so, charm. I am sure that the whole House is pleased that her voice lasted until the end and that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not have to stand in for her. I should also like to say that I believe that the excellence of the first speech tempted and prompted all the excellent speeches that we heard. I particularly join with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in saying what a pleasure it was to listen to my noble friend Lord Saint Levan, whom I have not had the pleasure of hearing before. He spoke with long knowledge of the county and its history.
I took note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, did not wish to be political. Certainly, I have no intention of being political either. But it may help noble Lords if I briefly set the context for the Government's response.
We have done well on the economy. Underlying inflation has been below 4 per cent. for over four years, which is the best performance for almost 50 years. Underlying manufacturers' output price inflation is at the lowest level for almost 30 years. GDP has now risen for almost five years and is 13 per cent. above the trough

1487
in the first quarter of 1992. The OECD forecast that the UK would be the fastest growing major EU economy in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Since 1980, manufacturing productivity has grown faster than in any other G7 country. The United Kingdom tax burden on business is the lowest of the major European economies. Investment in plant and machinery is up by three fifths and business investment is up by a half since 1979. Unemployment is falling steadily and there are more people in jobs.
The south west economy has also been doing well. The latest Plymouth Business School report, for example, sees recovery in the south west to be well established. Overall, in 1996, the indicators show growth similar to the economic upturn in 1986–87. There has been good news in Cornwall, too. Within the general picture, many outstanding individual companies are doing well. United States companies Harman International and Continental Sprayers are creating 185 valuable new jobs in Redruth. Redruth Brewery has won the brewing and distribution licence for the first Chinese beer to be produced outside China, with Hong Kong among its customers. Cornwall's In Pursuit of Excellence initiative is an excellent example of how the county can be promoted as a place for business to succeed. The Tate of the West in St. Ives is drawing visitors from far and wide, bringing more money into the local economy. Last summer was the best ever for tourism in the West Country with spending up by £200 million and more overseas visitors.
I am aware of the perception that the West Country generally gets a raw deal compared with Wales and other areas. I believe that one will always get groups in every county which feel that they are hard done by and could produce statistics to show the difference. But Cornwall and Devon do not, of course, tend to have the very large sites for major developments which major inward investors seek, and which tend to be associated with large sums of regional selective assistance which receive media attention. Nevertheless, the regional development organisation, Devon and Cornwall Development International, has had its best year yet, securing inward investment of over £73 million. Perhaps I should just mention that it is appropriate to look at the scale of the problems. In assisted areas of Wales, for example, there are more than three and a half times as many unemployed people as in the whole of Cornwall: 72,500 compared with 19,500. The Government obviously have to look at the total picture.
We know that there is special concern about the level of unemployment in Cornwall and we share it. Unemployment in the county remains too high. It is a sadness for those who are unemployed themselves and for their families. But we have already achieved a great deal. The unemployment rate fell from a peak of 15.5 per cent. in January 1986 to 14.5 per cent. in December 1992 and is currently 9.2 per cent. There is clearly much more work to be done. But we believe that we have the right policies and programmes in place to tackle the problems, in partnership with local people.
1488
These problems do not go unrecognised by government programmes. It is in the areas of most need that our programmes are most concentrated. Much of Cornwall has been granted assisted area status in recognition of these problems. In the past 10 years, over £75 million of regional selective assistance has secured investment of nearly £500 million in businesses and over 17,000 jobs in the assisted areas of the region, mainly in Cornwall and Devon. Nearly £5 million of RSA has already been offered in 1996–97 to companies in Cornwall alone, generating over £31.5 million investment and 600 new and safeguarded jobs. Cornwall has won £11.5 million of grant support in the first three bidding rounds of our single regeneration budget challenge fund, which is expected to create over 6,700 jobs and 800 new businesses. English Partnerships is to provide advance industrial units that inward investors need through a special £5 million programme in the West Country. Penzance, Redruth, Indian Queens and St. Austell in Cornwall will benefit. Cornwall, with parts of Devon and west Somerset, benefits from by far the largest European Objective 5b rural development programme in England with £170 million available—599 projects have been approved so far, totalling £56.4 million grant. These include the £8 million private sector-led Bodmin Business Park which will create 60 new business units and 477 new jobs. Cornwall and Devon have £8.9 million—nearly half the total for England—under the European Leader II programme to help develop rural communities, of which £1.8 million project grant has already been approved. And there are many more examples. This adds up to very substantial support.
The Government have demonstrated their support for Cornwall in other ways. The noble Baroness asked whether there is a commitment from the Government. The answer to that is absolutely so. There has been, among other things, the appointment of the only Minister in England, my right honourable friend David Curry, given special responsibility for this area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Saint Levan for welcoming that move. This appointment has been widely welcomed locally and so too have the many things which he has achieved in just a few months, in partnership with local organisations, led by the West Country Development Corporation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that they do consult and that it is in partnership with local organisations. It is this kind of partnership approach which is needed and which has been successful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and other speakers mentioned the job losses at St. Ivel and English China Clay. We are saddened that that has happened. The Government are helping with a response to this and will continue to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked me to give him an answer. I do have one. However, many other noble Lords have asked questions and so I think I should move on; otherwise I shall not be able to meet all the points.
The Minister for the South West met a local delegation and gave a positive response to four immediate priorities for action, which are already in hand, and has promised further support where needed.

1489
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the importance of good infrastructure to the Cornish economy. The Government agree. Communications have been improved greatly over the years and work on key strategic routes continue. Many noble Lords mentioned the A.30, the main strategic route through Cornwall which provides faster and direct access to the M.5. following substantial government investment over many years. Preparatory work on the key section in Cornwall between Bodmin and Indian Queens will resume later this year, demonstrating that the Government listen to what local people say. A possible application by Railtrack for European regional development funds towards diversion of the Newquay rail line where it crosses the section of the A.30 at Goss Moor Bridge is being discussed. The noble Baroness asked when work will start. It will start shortly.
Many noble Lords asked about the same problem. As part of the total improvement scheme for the A.30 Bodmin-Indian Queens section, Railtrack is also looking at possible applications for European regional development funds to help divert the bridge. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was particularly concerned about that.
Rail links to London and other major cities are good and Railtrack is commissioning a feasibility study for investment options for improving the Great Western route to Penzance, Plymouth and Newquay and provide direct air links to international routes in London. These are crucial to business. I know that the decision of Brymon Airways to switch flights to Gatwick has not met with universal approval. But that has removed uncertainty about the future. It will enable the development of services, which was not possible due to the congestion at Heathrow. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the link was not closed. It was simply switched to Gatwick, which to many people would be considered more acceptable for central London and might be more helpful for businessmen, visitors and tourists.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, surely the importance of the Heathrow link is not for tourism, but to enable businessmen to fly to other parts of the world, which they cannot do from Gatwick.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. The fact is that 100 destinations are now served from Gatwick, which has grown at a huge rate. There is an enormous number of services to American destinations from Gatwick. The Gatwick link will probably benefit Cornwall more than if the airline had stayed at Heathrow.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention, but it is important that I move on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has argued forcefully about how millennium funding can help the regeneration of our cities, towns and villages. The Government agree. Although regeneration is not one of the primary purposes of the Millennium Commission, Cornwall will benefit substantially from millennium
1490
and lottery funding. Up to £2.7 million of millennium funding will support parish-based community initiatives ranging from village halls to playing fields. Over £15 million of lottery money will support nearly 120 projects in Cornwall, providing new and better facilities for local communities. There is also a major application, which the Millennium Commission is considering, for the Eden project near St. Austell, which many noble Lords have asked about today. It has huge potential for the creation of jobs and the attraction of more visitors to Cornwall. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that this application has now been long-listed for more detailed appraisal. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend Lord Saint Levan will be pleased about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, also asked about the Falmouth project. Applications have been submitted by the Falmouth International Maritime Initiative for National Lottery funding, but that is a matter for the National Lottery to consider.
The noble Baroness argued specifically in support of the benefits that a university campus for Cornwall can bring to the economy of Cornwall and has asked if Government will give their own support to the bid for millennium funding for this project proposed by the University of Exeter. It is, of course, for the Millennium Commission to decide on the application for funding and Government cannot interfere in that process.
I can say, however, that the University for Cornwall project is an example of what we are seeking to encourage in terms of local initiatives financed to a significant extent through sources other than public funds.
The Government recognise that higher education is a major contributor to local regional and national economic growth and regeneration, and the prestige that a university can bring. That is why we have asked the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, led by Sir Ron Dearing, to take this into account when making its recommendations later this year, alongside the principles of Government policy to encourage diversity and responsiveness to national and local needs for higher education. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, sits on that committee.
Government also encourage enterprise in our universities, and the level of public funds for an individual university is determined irrespective of the level of private income which it is able to generate. Because of public funding constraints, we are currently controlling the aggregate number of full-time undergraduate students in higher education. The Higher Education Funding Council for England distributes public funds to universities within this limit.
The noble Baroness asked specifically whether the Government would support the case for European Objective 1 status for Cornwall. The Government will always seek to achieve the best results for Cornwall, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. Cornwall is currently linked with Devon as a European statistical region. The proposals for revision of the UK regions for European purposes, as set out by the Office for National Statistics, have been out for consultation. It is suggested

1491
that Cornwall should be a separate level 2 region. The Government are considering those proposals, which will need to be put before the Commission's Eurostat Agency for approval.
I am aware that my 15 minutes are up and that I have not quite managed to answer all of the points that have been raised. I shall read Hansard carefully and, if necessary, will write to noble Lords on any points that I have not covered. I hope that the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have spoken will feel that, although one can never be totally satisfied with the performance
1492
of any part of the economy—things could always be better—the fact is that the Government have recognised the problems and have done their best to make them better. Indeed, the position is steadily improving.
Cornwall is a unique county with its own history, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has told us so much. Cornwall has its own culture and language. Indeed, the noble Viscount also told us about Cornish pasties. Cornwall is a very special place. Moreover, it is one of the most beautiful parts of England. It deserves to prosper. We wish it—I wish it—well.
House adjourned at one minute past four o'clock.