Sitting of 24 June 1988

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Policing (London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  9.35 am
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The last time the House debated the policing of London was in July 1986. Last year, the general election came in the way and there was no debate. I am glad to return to these debates in circumstances which are, at least in some respects, more hopeful than those of two years ago.
  Policing in 1988 is a hard job. It always has been, and it always will be. Every day of the year, we expect our police officers to face the different consequences of human failure, anger, violence, jealousy and greed. They are backed by the uncertain protection of their uniform and their own human qualities, and we ask police officers to protect us from the daily calamities of our existence. Nothing of that has changed since 1986.
  The events of 1986 still cast their shadow. The pictures from Wapping illustrated just what modern policing demands of its officers. Men and women are expected at one moment to be Dixons of Dock Green, and at the next to don protective gear against a barrage of missiles, yet remain restrained and disciplined. Hon. Members will know that the actions of some officers are being investigated by the Police Complaints Authority because of allegations made at Wapping. I cannot comment on cases under investigation, and I do not wish to give the impression that any malpractice—if it turns out that there was any—is excusable, but I emphasise that the pressure faced by Metropolitan police officers then and today should be remembered by all those of us who, often unthinkingly, enjoy their protection.
  It is right to be cautious about recorded crime statistics, but it is possible for necessary caution to become unnecessary fatalism. It is too easy to treat rises in recorded crime as signs of some inevitable deterioration, while dismissing falls as quirks in the data. The figures fluctuate—we must remember that—but better figures are still better than worse ones.
  I welcome the 4 per cent. fall in recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district in 1987. That does not mean that I claim that crime is defeated or that the tide has firmly turned. I am well aware that the figures for the first quarter of this year were less encouraging, but, despite the first quarter's rise, recorded crime in the 12 months to the end of March was 2 per cent. lower than in the preceding year. Having made all the cautionary points about statistics, I may say that 4 per cent. less crime in 1987 is an indicator of progress, for which the police and members of the public deserve some credit.
  1368
  Overall figures can mislead. The 4 per cent. reduction masks more spectacular decreases, and increases, in particular crimes and at particular places.
  The most disturbing trend was in offences involving violence. In 1987, there was an 11 per cent. increase in offences of violence against the person. Such offences still account for a very small proportion—about 3 per cent.—of the recorded crime total, but the fear they engender and the suffering they cause is especially severe. That is why the police and the courts have to concentrate on them. Crimes of violence can occur at any time and almost anywhere. That means that prevention is especially hard.
  The Metropolitan police has issued guidance on ways in which members of the public can reduce the risk of attack, but we cannot eliminate that risk. We can, however, reduce it by increasing the police presence on the streets.
  The additional manpower that I have authorised for the Metropolitan police has been granted with the specific intention of increasing street patrols. In 1987, the Commissioner targeted 16 divisions in London in which there was a particularly acute street robbery problem, and made a special effort to provide them with additional resources—particularly manpower. These divisions—despite having severe crime problems—performed better than average. While robbery over the rest of the Metropolitan police district rose by 17 per cent., in the 16 chosen divisions it rose on average by 9 per cent. and in three of the most difficult—Brixton, Clapham and Battersea—it actually fell. The Commissioner was right to target his resources in that way.
  Not all groups of violent offences showed an increase. It was especially heartening to note a fall of 11 per cent in the figures for rape and a small decrease in the number of homicides.
  The figures for non-violent offences are more encouraging. In particular, the reduction of nearly 5 per cent. in domestic burglaries must be connected with the efforts that people are increasingly making to reduce crime in their own communities. That investment of effort—usually in the form of neighbourhood watch schemes was reflected in outstanding local results. In Highbury vale, Holloway, between March and September 1987, two excellent watch schemes on council estates showed burglary figures 20 per cent. and 50 per cent down on the same period in the preceding year. These trends can be maintained. They are not necessarily short term. The 131 schemes in Wimbledon cover almost 44,000 households, and the number of recorded burglaries is almost a fifth lower than in 1983.
  Theft of and from cars accounts for almost 30 per cent. of notifiable offences. I find that an amazingly high figure. Our cars are much more vulnerable than our homes or ourselves. We take much less trouble in protecting them, although perhaps we are changing our ways. Theft and the unauthorised taking of motor vehicles fell by 15 per cent in 1987. Like burglary, this a crime that the public can help to prevent by taking fairly simple precautions.
  Levels and trends in crime vary not only between types of crime, but also between divisions. The Metropolitan police district covers an immense diversity of communities, from the tourist and financial centres of the west end and the City, through inner-city divisions, to the outer suburbs and the rural fringe. That is why it makes sense that local chief superintendents consult their communities and set local priorities to meet the varying needs of their divisions.

  1369
  In 1988, burglary, rowdyism and autocrime appear in the divisional objectives of divisions like Barkingside, Bexleyheath and Hayes while in divisions such as Peckham, West Ham and Hackney, robbery, drugs and violent attacks are included. The spread of the Metropolitan police district is catered for by the discretion granted to local management. That means that the concerns of outer divisions are not made subservient to those of inner city, or vice versa.
  The Metropolitan police is responsible for maintaining the Queen's peace in a capital city. It is an organsation of about 40,000 people, costing about £1 billion each year. That is a huge effort and a huge resource. The Metropolitan police deserves, and I am determined that it should continue to receive, the resources that it needs, but we must be clear that those resources must be used to the best possible effect.
  Let me deal with the provision of resources in a little more detail. The main resource is manpower—men and women, civilian and uniformed. Manpower accounts for about 80 per cent. of police spending. The strength of the Metropolitan police has never been greater. At the time of the last bulk intake of recruits on 6 June, the strength of the force stood at 27,786, which is a record. The figure is 5,550 higher than it was in May 1979. That means greater cost, because one cannot police on the cheap. The consequences of policing on the cheap were all too plain 10 years ago in the lowering of morale and in the number of police forces way below establishment.
  The provision of proper pay for police officers has improved matters immensely. Ten years ago, forces simply could not recruit up to their establishments. Today, we have not only increased those establishments; we have provided the resources to realise them. The Met is no exception. Today, its strength is about 99 per cent. of establishment and it expects to reach before the end of the year the increased establishment that I announced in April. Provision has been made for a further 300 officers next year. That shows that we are talking not about paper figures and rhetoric but about real support for the police.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of the Home Secretary's speech. I accept that he is making efforts to increase establishments and to recruit. Will he tell the House whether the problem of the retention of police officers in London has been dealt with equally successfully and progressively? The great concern of London Members is that the established force in a particular division or district may be reduced when key people leave suddenly to take up another position in the force. Policing London is difficult, and young people especially find it difficult to stay. They are tempted to go to quieter parts of the country. Is the Home Secretary confident that we are dealing with that problem, because people in London consider the retention of police officers to be one of the signs of a coherent and committed police force?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have managed to achieve record strength in the Metropolitan police despite the problem he mentioned, which is a very real one. That is why, in the Police Negotiating Board, the official side is trying to work out a reorganisation of the London arrangements to concentrate the extra resources
  1370
  available on retention rather than on the London allowance, which covers everyone. That proposal is in the negotiating machinery at the moment, and no doubt we shall return to the matter.
  Spending on the Met has increased by 59 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. That is a huge increase. Taxpayers and ratepayers in London strongly support that increase, but they are entitled to ask whether the money is being well used. In the foreword to his annual report for 1987, which was published earlier this month, the Commissioner wrote:
  "Quite rightly we must, along with other public bodies like education, health and social services, show that we give value for money."
  In an organisation of the size of the Metropolitan police, which has a huge range of tasks, it is not at all easy to measure value for money. However, the police are beginning to do that more effectively.
  Some portray the Met as an uncontrolled bureaucracy with too many expensive officers stuck behind desks. Let me give some facts to refute that. Last year, there was a reduction of 344 in headquarters staff and an increase of 752 in the number of officers on area. More than 400 additional constables were on divisions between March and the end of the year, and 13 per cent. more hours were spent on street duty by divisional police constables. There were 6 per cent. more arrests. That push of resources into the field—it is not easy to achieve—is a tribute to the present Commissioner, who has made an outstandingly good start, and to his predecessor, Sir Kenneth Newman.
  People want more officers out in the streets. Street duty is up by 13 per cent. People want criminals arrested. Arrests are up 6 per cent. People want officers in their areas, not in distant headquarters buildings. The number of headquarters posts went down by more than 300, and posts on areas rose by over 750. The average division of the Metropolitan police had five to six more uniformed police constables at the end of last year than at the beginning. Civilianisation is steadily releasing officers from desk jobs. In. first two years of the manpower programme that I announced in May 1986, around 200 officers were. released by civilianisation to operational duties.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I refer the Home Secretary to resources and the expansion of requirement. Is it not a fact that a considerable proportion of the £1 billion comes from existing ratepayers, with a national proportion from the Exchequer, to deal with the national responsibilities of the Metropolitan police? Therefore, when we change to a poll tax, persons will literally pay for the protection of persons.
  Is it envisaged that a significant proportion of money will come from the national commercial property tax to pay for the protection of property? The Home Secretary is quite properly talking about value for money, but it is not at all easy for the voter who pays poll tax to evaluate it. These are important, fundamental issues, and perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will refer to them in his winding-up speech. The poll tax payer will pay a significant amount of money.
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, but we do not intend to reorganise the way in which the policing of London is financed. Therefore, there will be a continued contribution from the business rate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will elaborate on that.

  1371
  I was about to refer to the importance of special constables. They are not substitutes for regular officers, and they are not used to offset demands for increases in police establishments, but they are an invaluable additional resource and a link between police forces and the community. I am glad that the Commissioner has undertaken a scrutiny into the Metropolitan police special constabulary, and I look forward to hearing the results. I hope that all police officers, and also those outside London, will respond constructively to recommendations to strengthen the role of specials. I understand that there are historical misgivings about using part-time volunteer officers. If there is a lingering traditional view in some quarters that, in some way, specials are a threat and hindrance to the regular force, it does not bear examination in 1988 and should be abandoned.
  I am aware also of the need to prevent the Metropolitan police from being regarded as a force entirely by itself. It is important that the best practices of provincial forces can be spread to the Met, and vice versa. We have takena big step forward. With my full support, the Commissioner invited Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to start a programme of inspections of selected parts of the Metropolitan police. That has never happened before. The first inspection of community involvement and crime prevention branches has been completed, and we are studying its findings. Further inspections of particular areas of London and of particular functions will follow. That is an important advance in securing further gains in the effectiveness of policing the capital.
  That big organisation—40,000 people and £1 billion—will always have areas in which its effectiveness can be improved, but I am sure that important work has already been done. I commend the initiatives that I have mentioned and others as examples of what the Commissioner described as efforts to achieve a
  "leaner, fitter and better integrated"
  force. But, of course, they are not objectives in themselves. They are improving the means to an end. 'The Commissioner and the police authority at the Home Office quite rightly put emphasis on the end to which resources are aimed. That is why the Commissioner has continued the priorities about force goals. I shall spend a little time on that matter, as each priority directly affects the quality of life of Londoners, and each one concerns activities that can injure or frighten people.
  The first priority is the reduction of criminal opportunity. The involvement of members of the public in crime prevention is the key. I have already mentioned neighbourhood watch schemes. They are the most popular example, illustrated by the striking fact that more than 1 million London households have joined them. There are professional doubters. Of course the quality of schemes varies a good deal—it is bound to vary—but the professional police assessment of the Commissioner is:
  "I have no doubts whatsoever about the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch; my support is unequivocal".
  Of course, the Government have a part to play in creating the right structures for crime prevention. The various Government-funded schemes that are available for crime prevention—the community programme, the urban programme, and the housing investment programme—are well used in London. We have just invited the boroughs of Lewisham and Tower Hamlets to become part of the first group to join our new safer cities initiative. I hope that they will give me a positive response to that invitation.
  1372
  They know that the Metropolitan police will fully support the programme. As the House knows, we are building on the success of our five town-Home Office initiatives in the past year or so and some excellent crime prevention work that is already under way in London.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Home Secretary agree that the safer cities initiative is actually an admission by the Government that just putting more police on the streets is not the way to solve the rising problem of crime within inner-city areas?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether any sensible person has ever argued that putting more police on the streets is the only way. It is not a sufficient way. It is a necessary part of it, but I do not think that anyone has argued—certainly I have never argued—that, by itself, it is sufficient. The safer cities project, with the full backing of the police, is based on the idea that we make progress by bringing together—locally and specifically—all the different agencies that can help towards the prevention of crime. For example, the hon. Gentleman knows of the Government-funded task force in north Kensington, security improvements to shop fronts and homes around All Saints road, the crime prevention shop, and better street lighting. That is just one example. There is another task force in north Peckham, employing 150 people—mostly local people—to improve the security of pensioners' homes. Once again, the police are closely involved.
  But crime prevention is not concerned only with physical security. Methods of policing, which can forge closer links between officers and local residents, can be invaluable. We do not usually find a commendation of our efforts in the magazine "Time Out", but hon. Members may have read a striking article in it earlier this month, describing the system of policing the Pepys estate in Deptford and the impressive reductions in burglary and motor vehicle and street crime. Estate policing, which means a team of officers dedicated to a certain estate, has been tried in several London divisions, and the Commissioner is exploring the scope for extending it.
  They are the informal police-community contacts that help to bind the police and the community more closely together. There is also a need for more formal arrangements that have been laid down by the House. I refer to the rather fraught history of police-community consultative groups in London. In the past, those who are opposed on doctrinaire grounds to any constructive contact with the police have sought to thwart the formation of such groups, and those who desire to control policing for their own ends have tried to distort their purpose. As every hon. Member knows, it has been uphill.
  I am glad to say that we have now reached the stage at which all London boroughs except one—Newham—now have consultative groups. I understand that a group may soon be established in Newham. The police have persevered in establishing these groups. It must have been discouraging—they met hostility from time to time—but it is a considerable achievement for them and for people of good will in different political parties who have helped them.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State concede that the establishment of the consultative groups was foreshadowed many years ago by the policies of the Greater London council, which wished

  1373
  to see more democratic control of the police? The response of the police was eventually to agree to the establishment of those consultative groups, which, I am glad to say, now operate in all but one London borough. Surely the Home Secretary should give some credit to the Greater London council for the work that it did in trying to bring the police closer to the rest of the community in London?
  Mr. Hurd: No, it was precisely the doctrines of the GLC—which, unfortunately, lasted beyond its demise—which got in the way of the process that I am trying to describe diplomatically. People tried to use the fact that there were to be consultative groups to assert, by the back door, political control over the policing of particular boroughs. That is what happened, and that is what has eventually been worn down. I do not want to upset what in some places is still a delicate situation, but the hon. Gentleman has provoked me into doing so. As the shadow of the GLC ceases to hang over these deliberations, we have been able to move on a bit.
  Through consultative groups, Londoners can make a contribution to the realisation of the police service that they want, and the police can tailor their effort to gain public co-operation and satisfaction. I hope that that process will continue.
  From prevention, I turn now to detection. Some difficult decisions are bound to have to be taken on this. Clearly the police have to set priorities because the demands on them are almost inexhaustible. That is why the Met has now introduced crime screening, a technique which concentrates detective resources on those crimes where clear-ups are most likely.
  I should dispel two misunderstandings about this. First, all serious crimes are automatically investigated—none is screened out. Secondly, there is no screening out of categories of crime simply on the grounds that they are minor. There is no question of an "amnesty" on, for example, the theft of cars. What crime screening does—it is an honest and cost-effective way of dealing with the problem—is to divert effort away from crimes where a solution is unlikely, to those where the chance of a conviction is higher. That is bound to create occasional disappointment if crimes are not followed up because there are insufficient leads. However, that is better than going into a whole series of mechanical investigations which will not lead anywhere, when the resources—the police officers involved—could spend their time solving, preventing and detecting crime.
  Tucked away on page 52 of the Commissioner's report is the appalling statistic that assaults on officers on duty rose by a third in 1987. That fact should be in all our minds because officers continue to perform their duties in a professional manner in such circumstances. That is an impressive testimony to the force.
  Government and public must work together to clean violence out of the atmosphere of London, because I think that we would all agree that violence is the worst form of pollution. We cannot allow this city to degenerate to the level of, say, Los Angeles, New York or Miami. That is why we have asked the House to approve changes to the laws on firearms and offensive weapons. The use of knives in crime in London, and elsewhere, remains unacceptably high.
  1374
  I need not rehearse the discussions that we have had on the Criminal Justice Bill, except to say that, when the Bill completes its stages, as I hope it will next week, it will be an offence to have any knife except a folding pocket knife in a public place without good reason. The onus will be on the possessor to show that he has a good reason. That will make the job of the police easier in dealing with people they find in possession of knives. It means that people who casually carry knives should take note that they will no longer be able to evade the law; they should leave knives at home.
  I turn now to another form of violence——
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way on the issue of knives?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, but that is his ration
  Mr. Corbyn: In that case, I am deeply grateful to the Home Secretary. Like everyone else, I welcome any attempt to reduce the number of knives that are carried in public because they can be used for crime. Has the Home Secretary considered whether there is any possibility of reducing the number of outlets that can sell open or sheathed knives; is he prepared to introduce any regulations for the curtailment of such points of sale, or to follow up those people who buy large quantities of those knives for later private sale?
  Mr. Hurd: I was generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time. As only four Labour Members are in the Chamber it seemed reasonable to give him a second go as a reward for assiduity. Of course we have looked at that possibility. We have adopted it in respect of certain types of martial arts weapons, and under the Criminal Justice Bill the sale of such weapons will be outlawed. However, we have not adopted it for the wider range of knives—that is the problem—for which there are perfectly legitimate uses. It would be difficult to find a way of restricting such knives at the point of sale. Therefore, we have turned, I believe with the support of the Opposition, to operating on possession in a public place.
  I turn now to racial attacks. I know that the House has always wished us to concentrate on them, because they are a particularly ugly form of violence. A year ago, the force adopted a new policy and new guidance on the recording and monitoring of racial incidents, and many divisions have made racial attacks an essential priority. The increase of 26 per cent. in racial incidents in 1987 has been at least partly attributed to the encouragement which the police have given the. community to report incidents, and arrests have increased by 28 per cent.
  As the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will know, in Newham a dedicated squad has been established to counter such attacks. In Newham and Ealing, and recently in Redbridge and Tower Hamlets, extensive campaigns have been mounted to provide information in different languages, advice on reporting racial incidents, and simple measures to avoid them. The training for new recruits emphasises the importance that the force attaches to tackling racial incidents.
  Organised crime often hits the headlines, and it is right that it should do so because it poses a particular threat to society. The various forms of organised crime, particularly

  1375
  drug trafficking and robbery, must be given high priority. I hope that the new confiscation provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will help in that effort.
  Policing the Underground is the responsibility of the British transport police; but the Commissioner and I know there is considerable public conern about crime on the Underground. I have discussed this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and he has undertaken a number of measures to improve policing on the Underground. I am especially concerned, as is the Commissioner, about the need to ensure that, although there are two forces, they work so closely together that there is no effective division between them.
  I have been into this issue carefully in recent months, and I believe that liaison is generally excellent. I hope that hon. Members will share with me their impressions on that issue. When I opened the new Uxbridge police station the other day, I was impressed to find a British transport police officer serving there in liaison and on attachment to the Metropolitan police station to ensure the total co-ordination of police operations dealing with crime in that busy part of the Underground.
  Neither the police, nor we in this House and the Government should or can forget the victims of crime. They are one of the Commissioner's priorities. We have shown our commitment to victim support through a substantial and expanding programme of funding for local schemes, which will rise to £4 million a year by 1989–90. Several London schemes are taking part in special projects, funded from this source, to look into the needs of the families of murder victims and victims of racial attacks, in close co-operation with the Met and other agencies. The police have excellent relations in London with the many victim support schemes. They have made special efforts in the last few years to provide a sympathetic service to victims. That includes the provision of eight suites for the victims of sexual offences, five of which are operational.
  The final target of the Commissioner's strategy is the maintenance of public tranquility and the policing of public disorders. That is one of the hardest areas of policing in London. Whatever tack the police follow, they are sometimes criticised. If they police too lightly, the atmosphere in our streets can become insecure and intimidating; if they police too heavily, young people in particular will complain of aggressive policing. It is satisfactory that major public disorder in London has mercifully been less frequent recently, but we should not be complacent. The levels of minor disorder in London are still unpleasantly and uncomfortably high, even though, through a lot of hard work by many people, we have managed to avoid a repetition of the disastrous riots of 1981 and 1985.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I have been quite generous in giving way. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite merits it. Of course, that will not prevent him from speaking in the debate and I shall conclude so that he and others can do so.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am surprised that the Home Secretary has not mentioned alcohol. One of the threats to tranquillity and the preservation of security, is the enormous amount of crime and vandalism occasioned in London and elsewhere because people drink too much and
  1376
  then misbehave. On a Saturday night in the Old Kent road, the entirely sober citizen has to run the gamut of hordes of people spilling out of pubs, having had far too much to drink, and police vans with sirens racing up and down as if it were an American inner-city highway. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what can be done in London to make sure that alcoholism is reduced and security increased?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that far too high a proportion of crimes in London and elsewhere are committed by people whose natural self-control has been destroyed or weakened by drink. That is particularly true of the young, and it is certainly becoming a substantial problem. It has always been a problem, and it is now becoming more substantial. That is why, in the Licensing Bill, for example, while permitting adults to have a glass of beer or wine in the afternoon, we are tightening up on under-age drinking. That is why we are looking at the powers available to licensing justices and the police to clamp down on particular places—not necessarily pubs, as supermarkets are one of the main sources of this stupid alcohol abuse—so that the existing powers can be used more effectively to solve specific problems.
  We shall certainly need to return to that subject. I agree that it is not peculiar to London; it is a national subject. We have to move fairly cautiously not to appear hypocritical or over bossy. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is certainly entitled to draw attention to that subject, which requires a response from the Government, law makers, parents, teachers and all those who can influence people towards sensible rather than stupid drinking.
  Mr. Tony Banks: This is an important matter, and while we have the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box it is useful to direct his mind to the issue. I have the leave of the House to introduce a ten-minute Bill on the labelling with health warnings of all alcohol products for consumption. There has been some demand from hon. Members from all sides of the House for control on the advertising of alcohol products. Do any of those proposals appeal to the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that those particular proposals appeal to me, but my right hon. Friend the Lord President chairs the ministerial group which the Prime Minister set up to examine all those proposals, and he is looking particularly at the proposals of Lady Masham's report on the subject; the Government will reach conclusions about them.
  I do not think that Opposition members would argue that it was easy to get the balance right. We do not want to tip over into bossiness, which would simply antagonise people and not advance the position at all. We cannot avoid the need to steer people away from the stupid drinking which undoubtedly lies at the heart of a good deal of minor and major crime.
  There are a number of matters that I have not mentioned, because we have other occasions to discuss them. I have not mentioned the work of the Metropolitan police against terrorism, because we shall be discussing our efforts against terrorism in the next Session. I have not talked about its work with schools, although I believe that

  1377
  it is crucially important. I have stuck to the main priorities mentioned by the Commissioner, which I believe are the right ones, and I fully support the goals that he has set.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has been speaking on these matters to the electors of Kensington in the past few days. I expect that we may get the same analysis from him today, and I find it particularly confused. The electors of Kensington may not have heard the old gospel. So the new gospel may appear convincing to them. But to those of us who have heard the old gospel, the new gospel does not make very much sense. We remember when it was the Labour party's view that the Prime Minister was responsible for crime because she had created poverty and unemployment. Now the right hon. Gentleman is saying that she is responsible for crime because she has created prosperity and affluence.
  In the old gospel, the Labour party believed that the police were responsible for many of the problems in London and therefore should be treated with hostility and at arm's length.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary tell me when I said that the police were responsible for crime in London?
  Mr. Hurd: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman said that. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the GLC. The whole tradition of GLC thinking, which we easily can document from the past, was precisely that the police were part of the problem and not part of the answer. We have constantly heard that theme not from the right hon. Gentleman but from his predecessors. There are hon. Members present today who know that to be perfectly true.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The House should know that, in Ealing, the Labour councillors have always refused to sit on the police consultative committee. But they spent £600,000 on what is as much an anti-police committee as that conducted on the GLC by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
  Mr. Hurd: Many of my hon. Friends could corroborate what I have said; it is perfectly true. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is now trying to make up for the years of neglect and hostilty towards the police. But he does not seem to have told the London Labour party, which continues, in vestiges, to obstruct. I mentioned the borough of Newham and the consultative groups. In several areas it continues to obstruct the formation of neightbourhood watch schemes, the putting up of signs and so on.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have given way to the hon. Member twice.
  Mr. Spearing: No—only once.
  Mr. Hurd: I stand by the main point that I am making, that vestiges of the London Labour party have not received the new message.
  I welcome the new message, because I have set out to drain the politics out of policing issues. I welcome the fact that, in most parts of the country, we have made
  1378
  substantial progress. We have made some progress in London. We are draining the venom out of some of the issues. The very sensitive reaction from the small number of Labour Members here today shows the truth of that. They have a considerable way to go, as I think all Londoners understand.
  Mr. Spearing: I should be grateful if we could get away from the venom that the Secretary of State has mentioned. Will he accept that whatever may have occurred in the past, the protracted discussions, which have now been concluded, in the London borough of Newham to set up the statutory consultative group will produce the sort of group and the sort of debates that he and I, and my hon. Friends, will welcome? Therefore, Newham can now be excluded from his strictures.
  Mr. Hurd: I know that the hon. Member has worked hard in the direction that he favours, and I pay tribute to him for that. I am not complaining about him, but he knows that in the London borough of Newham, part of which he represents, there have been precisely the elements, with precisely the message and attitudes, that I have described. That is one reason why the process has taken so painfully long.
  This is the first debate since the new Commissioner took over from Sir Kenneth Newman. In an organisation the size of the Metropolitan police force, expected to perform an ever more complicated range of duties, there will occasionally be weaknesses. We require our police to be managers, accountants, personnel officers, social workers, detectives and comforters. They are committed, across this huge range of duties, to the highest professional standards, and a single misdeed by one officer can tarnish, for a moment, the reputation of his or her 28,000 colleagues. That is why the Commissioner, with my backing, is committed to dealing firmly with all cases of misconduct.
  There is an absolute need to maintain the highest professional standards. Whatever our other disagreements, we can all agree on supporting the impressive efforts that the police carry out in London to do that. It is a tribute to the Commissioner, the 28,000 officers under his command, and the 13,000 civil staff that, in the difficult circumstances that I have described, and that he describes in his report, they are striving with increasing success to deliver an increasingly efficient and effective service to the people of London.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary addressed us for a little less than 50 minutes. I make no complaint about that. As what passes for a police authority in London, he has the duty, as well as the right, to give what amounts to a report to the House on the crime in the capital over the past year and the prospects for policing in the next. However, he might have spent just a little of those 50 minutes, or have added a few minutes to them, by saying something about the reasons for the causes of crime inside and outside London. He gave an analysis of crime in the capital but said not a word about why crime is here and why it has increased over the years, apart from a single sentence in refutation of what I said last Thursday—I am pleased and gratified that the Home Secretary described it as likely to impress the

  1379
  electors of Kensington. We had nothing whatsoever about why crime has been steadily on the increase over the past decade.
  Mr. John Wheeler: And before.
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, but not as fast as in the past decade.
  I have an explicit point to make about the Home Secretary's allegation about my right hon. and hon. Friends. When challenged to give examples, he said, rather feebly, that it could be easily documented. If it can be, what a pity that he did not bring with him a document which would have given him one example. The most recent example of the attitude of hon. Members towards the Metropolitan police comes from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who has spoken in support of ticket touts, many of whom are operating illegally. That is one example, and no doubt civil servants will now run around in the next four hours to find an example that the Under-Secretary can give in the other direction at 2 o'clock.
  As we are on to the trivial matters raised by the Home Secretary, I hope that when the Under-Secretary tells us of the assaults by the GLC on the Metropolitan police, he will also tell us whether, in the immortal word used by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to "disown" those members of his party who support illegal action. Does he propose to disown the hon. Member for Billericay, who has supported ticket touts, who often are acting illegally?
  I shall now deal with more serious matters than those raised by the Home Secretary. It is necessary to say something about the causes of crime. I do not doubt that two of its principal causes are unemployment and poverty. Nor do I doubt that those causes are particularly potent here in the capital, when grinding poverty in some parts of the city exists cheek by jowl with great affluence. Nor do I doubt that an additional cause, and one that makes it difficult to attack the symptoms, is the physical condition of the places where many London citizens live. The condition of London estates, the dilapidation of tower blocks and the absence of adequate lighting could be improved by additional public expenditure, but they have been ignored or neglected by the Government, who have even positively prevented such improvements.
  On the other hand, and this is the point to which the Home Secretary was kind enough to draw attention, I equally have no doubt that a new cause of crime, which is, according to the Chief Constables' Association, a new form of crime—the crime committed by the affluent young—is the result of values that are increasingly fashionable in society and which have been advocated and encouraged by the Government. A Government who have spent almost a full decade extolling the virtues of getting rich quick, of abandoning responsibility for other people's health and housing, and making a profit out of medical and community services, ought not to be surprised when some young men translate that philosophy into the belief that they have the right to do whatever they choose on Saturday night, as long as they pay for the damage afterwards.
  Like the Prime Minister, those young men believe that there is no such thing as society, only individuals. Anyone who has seen on television young brokers, bankers and commodity dealers celebrating a financial killing in the
  1380
  City wine bars must realise two things. The first is that those young men are the direct product of a society that the Government have created.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: They were born when you were in control, you berk.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope not to have to listen to the use of that word in the Chamber again.
  Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to offend your ears by using the word again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I am talking about hooliganism being the direct product of Conservatism, the fact that a Conservative Back Bencher uses a word that you and I consider improper, but no doubt is the common parlance of his normal conversation, illustrates my point better than I can illustrate it with second-hand examples.
  I was saying that those young men whom we see on television celebrating financial killings in the City wine bars are clearly the product of the Government's philosophy, and in philosophy and spirit they are not very different from the upwardly mobile hooligans who drive out from London on Saturday nights and tyrannise home county market towns. I have little doubt that often they are the same people.
  In short, a Government who base their philosophy on Mr. Ivan Boesky's philosophy that there is nothing wrong with greed ought not to be surprised when one of its byproducts is an intolerable increase in the crime rate. The Government exalt the City of London, but when so many of their friends and supporters there are prosecuted, allegedly for trying to get too rich too quickly, we must not be surprised if that sort of idea becomes contagious. It simply cannot be a coincidence that crime increases under this Government; the Government have created the climate in which it breeds.
  Yesterday at Question Time, whenever the Home Secretary said anything remotely enlightened about race relations and immigration, he was heckled, chivveyed and chased by mutterings and mumblings from his Back Benchers. If that is the philosophy and ethos that Tory Back Benchers create, should we be surprised when there is an increase in crimes of racial violence and racial attacks?
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's thesis that all the increases in crime can be laid at the door of the Government, whom I support. As in my judgment the largest single factor in the increase in crime is drunkenness, will the right hon. Gentleman give evidence of where the Government advocate getting drunk?
  Mr. Hattersley: I was about to give another example of the Government's behaviour. They give brewers what they want by extending licensing laws——
  Mr. Wilshire: That is nothing to do with it. One can get drunk without going to a pub.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman says that that is nothing to do with it; the ability to drink on Sunday afternoons has no influence on Sunday afternoon violence. The Government gave brewers the licensing laws that they wanted and said that if we were patient we would soon hear their proposals for preventing the abuse of alcohol

  1381
  and the increase in crime that comes from it. That is an exact example of the Government giving in to vested interests without caring whether it affects the crime rate.
  Mr. Boateng: I regret that the vagaries of London Transport prevented me from hearing the Home Secretary expressing his concern about racial harassment. I am glad that he did so and I am aware of his concerns about it. A number of Labour Members went to see the Commissioner of Police only the other day precisely to reiterate our concerns and alarm at the 26 per cent. rise in the incidence of racial violence in the capital.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the police but all of us have an important role to play in creating a climate in which there is no room in our communities for those who engage in racial attacks? A responsibility falls on politicians to set the tone and on local authorities to adopt a multi-agency approach to the issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not enough simply to talk about it and that we must apply the resources to address the problem?
  Mr. Hattersley: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the immigration policy of this country has at its root the suggestion and implication that a few more Asian husbands entering the country is a bad and dangerous thing, it is bound to breed a climate in which the far, dangerous and unacceptable end of the philosophy turns into attacks on Asians who are already here.
  I move from what I regard as the only possible conclusive explanation of why crime has continued to increase to discuss and describe the assault on its symptoms, which was the burden of the Home Secretary's speech. He spoke explicitly and specifically about the two measures, relating to knives and guns, that he has taken during the lifetime of this Parliament. He was kind enough to say that the Opposition had facilitated the passage of the parts of the Bill that reduced the prospects of knives being employed and freely sold for the wrong purposes. Of course we did, and we similarly supported his attempts to reduce the damage and death that might be caused by the improper use of guns. The problem that the Home Secretary had over the Firearms (Amendment) Bill was not with Labour Members but with Conservative Members. A Government with a majority of over 100 who have such problems with their own supporters cannot claim to be competent in managing their business, and certainly not competent in producing the right sort of Bill.
  Clearly, the crime rate in the capital is causing its people increasing apprehension—greater than at any time this century. I do not think that we should be surprised at the concern that has been expressed, because, despite the marginal improvement in the figures, which I shall discuss with the Home Secretary in a moment, crime in London continues at a terrifying rate. I know that the Home Secretary says that overall, year on year, there was a marginal reduction, but he conceded that it has been a bad first quarter this year. I hope that he will agree that the claims for a marginal reduction are based on the number of notified crimes. The problem with that statistic is that a large proportion of the crimes committed in London are not being notified because of the policy of the Metropolitan police.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right; the figures, by definition, are for recorded crime. As the British crime survey showed, a substantial body of crime is not recorded, but that has always been so. My impression—this is also the impression of the police—is that the proportion of crime getting on to the books is increasing. As we increase police numbers and improve police relations with the community, the proportion of crimes such as sexual crimes, which previously might have been kept hidden, getting on to the books is increasing. I turn the right hon. Gentleman's point in the other direction.
  Mr. Hattersley: That may be the Home Secretary's impression, but it is not mine and it is not borne out by the facts. I shall give one of the reasons why I believe him to be wrong. Crime screening, which the Home Secretary endorsed at Question Time two months ago, is causing great concern. It is a policy whereby the Metropolitan police say, "Short of resources as we are, there are certain kinds of crime that we cannot respond to quickly and there are some crimes that we cannot respond to at all." The net result, apart from its effect on relations between police and public, is that people say, "Since they will not come round even if we phone them and since they believe that this is the sort of crime that goes on round here and that there is nothing they can do about it, there is no point in reporting it." I believe that that attitude has led to a fundamental change in the statistics.
  Even if the Home Secretary's guess is right and the evidence as I have tried to describe it is wrong, we have had a bad first quarter, and in some areas there have been substantial increases year on year. Robbery, racial attacks and offences against the person, including assaults and woundings, have increased. Those problems are matters for great concern, not complacency.
  The clear-up rate has not improved at all; it is exactly the same this year as it was the year before. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is producing more figures out of the hat, but I shall rely on the Commissioner's figures rather than the political judgment of what the Commissioner should have said.
  It is extraordinary that, years after it was claimed that more policemen were being devoted to the task of crime prevention and detection, that they were being put on the beat and that civilians were being used to ensure that the police were used for their primary task, the clear-up rate has not improved. Again, that is in part why the Commissioner introduced what he called graduated response or crime screening—a system of not replying to crime calls immediately and not replying to some complaints at all. The phrase "crime screening", which has slipped into jargon, is a decision to take no action against some offences and to give such low priority to others that it amounts to no action.
  The police and community must work together to combat crime. I can think of nothing more likely to undermine people's faith in the police than somebody phoning the police because an offence has been committed but being told when a reply is eventually obtained, "This is not something to which we give high priority. If you live in this area this sort of thing is bound to happen. We do not have the resources to deal with these crimes."
  In his annual report, the Commissioner said:
  "Simply we must decide at a Force level where the priorities lie and concentrate upon them. We cannot meet every demand and make every demand a priority."

  1383
  I have some sympathy with the Commissioner because I believe that he is short of manpower. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say, according to the Commissioner's analysis, exactly how short of manpower the Metropolitan police are. The assistant commissioner for personnel and training, Mr. Sutton, wrote to me about that subject in December last year. The Home Secretary said that force levels are now almost up to full strength. In December they were 400 below the full establishment of nearly 28,000, which is as near to being at full strength as a large force can probably be at any one time. The assistant commissioner for personnel and training said in his letter:
  "force levels ought to he judged against the 1986 judgment written into the annual report that an extra 4,000 men were needed to meet basic day-to-day policing demands and increasing workloads."
  In 1986, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis believed that 4,000 additional policemen were necessary. As I understand the additions that have been obtained and approved since then, and as I understand the confirmation of those decisions, as descried by the Home Secretary, the force level has increased by about 1,600. That means that the Metropolitan police are still 2,500 men short of what they need if they are to fulfil their responsibilities.
  I emphasise again that if the Metropolitan police are so short of manpower that they cannot meet many of the calls on their services—which they may not regard as high priorities but that people who have had minor offences perpetrated against them certainly regard as of the highest priority for them—the loss of faith and confidence in, and respect for, the Metropolitan police will have an appalling effect on the proper relationship between police and people.
  If the Commissioner believes what he says, and I am sure that he does, about the importance of that relationship, he must go out of his way to attempt to improve what he called a
  "steadfast confidence in the style of policing"
  in the capital and to convince many people, who now believe that they are neglected, that they will not be neglected and that their calls on the police will be dealt with at the first possible opportunity.
  I have some sympathy with the Commissioner when he says that existing force levels make it impossible for him to meet all the demands made on him. The Commissioner lays the blame for that fairly and squarely on the Government. He says in his report:
  "it is difficult to impact violent crime significantly with our present resources and, simultaneously, to maintain an adequate standard of service across the full spectrum of other responsibilities."
  I have no doubt that that is right, but I was deeply depressed by one of the Home Secretary's responses to the dilemma, as revealed last Thursday in his speech to the House. He spoke about compulsory identity cards as a means of reducing crime. Inevitably that proposal received a great deal of publicity. I am opposed to compulsory identity cards. It involves a denial of civil liberties that I regard as intolerable. My main objection to the flotation of that idea is that it does not have a chance of being implemented. Not even this Government would introduce such a measure. It is an alternative to serious thought about how crime in London can be reduced. At its best it is a counsel of despair. What we want, particularly from the Commissioner, are not headlines but action, and that action has to be encouragement of the police and people to work together.
  1384
  My basic thesis is that for the police and people to work together the police must be seen to be doing the job that the people want them to do. I want to pursue for a moment how capable the police are of performing that task in the light of their present manpower shortages. I have already asked the Under-Secretary about total numbers, about the 1986 estimate that 4,000 more police were needed and about the calculation that fewer than half of them have been recruited. I want to ask him another question, which I understand applies to London and I know applies to other police areas. I shall ask both questions together and perhaps the Home Secretary will answer them at the same time.
  Do more men necessarily mean more policing? Does an increased establishment automatically mean more police hours?
  I am told by some authorities outside London, and I suspect that it is true of the capital, that one of the net results of the extra recruitment has been a massive reduction in expensive overtime. Although there are more men on the force, there are no more policemen on the beat or anywhere else, because policing hours have not been changed by the much-vaunted increase in recruitment. If the Home Secretary wants to answer both those questions now, I shall give way. Alternatively, the Under-Secretary of State might like to reply later.
  Mr. Hurd: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's first question and leave the second one to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman will want to be fair about manpower in London. A constraint on manpower in the Metropolitan police force has not been imposed by me for some time. I have been increasing the establishment ahead of what the Metropolitan police, despite all their recruiting efforts, have been able to match. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right that when he received that letter last December the deficit was 400. It is now below that figure. We are now approaching the time when the Metropolitan police will have managed to recruit and maintain the force up to the level that I fixed, so we have to consider the force level for the future. In the recent past the constraint on manpower was not imposed by me.
  Mr. Hattersley: I take the Home Secretary's point, but I hope that when he has time to consider it the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the direct point that although in December 1986 the assistant commissioner for personnel and training said that, to fulfil the task adequately, 4,000 men were needed, only 1,600 of those additional 4,000 men have been recruited. It is difficult not to conclude that the officers and the Commissioner and his staff believe that the estabilishment is too low. I hope also, because the two questions go inexorably together, that the Under-Secretary will tell us how my analysis of police manpower applies. I fear that the reduction in overtime has been so great that, in terms of men at work and hours of policing, the increase in London, and outside it, of available police time has been not nearly so great as is sometimes suggested.
  Mr. Spearing: On an associated topic that I hope to raise in the debate, but it would be appropriate to raise it now, is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the misguided value-for-money policy, limitations have been placed on vehicle mileage? When my constituents have phoned the police about a certain matter that is not considered by the police to be of sufficiently high priority

  1385
  they have been told that insufficient mileage is available and that the police have run out of their mileage ration. Is not the Government's value-for-money attitude counterproductive in public relations terms and in every other aspect?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is another example of the crime screening policy that I was astonished to hear the Home Secretary fully endorse when I asked him about it two months ago.
  To respond to what people need is an essential element in obtaining their co-operation. I want to see a partnership and co-operation between the police and the public. I know that that is important to the Home Secretary, who would never find himself totally at home in the run-of-the-mill political battle that portrays the Labour party as violently anti-police. I make it absolutely clear that I want to see co-operation between individuals and the police in the schemes that the police may propose: the safer cities initiative, crime watch schemes—I am a member of such a scheme—and co-operation between the people's representatives and the police.
  I shall continue to argue about the importance of an elected police authority that has no day-to-day control over police operations but is able to guide the police on the priorities of the people for whom they provide protection. My reason for wanting such an authority is that without it I believe that there will never be the co-operation between police and people that I want to see. I remember very well the days of the watch committees outside London. They were considered to be not a Red revolution but a simple, sensible practice. Watch committees that could forge a relationship between police and people would be right both inside and outside London. As with all other aspects of policing, they would make possible the most important ingredient: a successful partnership between police and people.
  I want the consultation groups to prosper. The reason why they are beginning to take hold is that the Home Secretary—like his predecessor—has begun to give them some marginal functions. The more functions such groups have the more they are likely to achieve the purpose that the Home secretary wants.
  Mr. John Bowis: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the Commissioner's regret that, although there are consultative groups in the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth, the majority party in each of those boroughs—the Labour party—does not take part in them? Will he tell his hon. Friends that?
  Mr. Hattersley: I should like them to take part, and if the hon. Gentleman wants me to repeat that, I am happy to do so. However, I understand why people are reluctant to play a part in organisations that they believe have inadequate power and purpose. I repeat that the greater the real powers given to such groups the more likelihood there is of people with real concern for the community's welfare taking part in them.
  I have gone on for almost two thirds of the very long time that the Home Secretary took to make his speech. In London, we want a proper partnership between police and people. There will be no lasting or significant reduction in crime rates until that happens. The Home Secretary
  1386
  deludes himself if he believes it will ever come about while the police in London are so savagely restrained by the cost limits he has imposed on them and by their inability to perform all the tasks that the people of London want them to do.
  More importantly, even when the police have the manpower, facilities and resources they want, crime in this country will increase until we encourage a different standard of values, based on the needs of the whole community. The Government are incapable of encouraging such a standard, so crime will go on increasing until the Government go.
  10.52 am
  Mr. John Wheeler: In due course I shall refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) but I must say first that he should be awarded nought out of 100 for his knowledge of criminology. He, alas, has little real understanding of the causes of crime. He has a long way to go. Should he remain with us in his present capacity for a little longer, he may well profit in the course of his journey.
  This is the first debate on the Metropolitan police under the commissionership of Sir Peter Imbert, who succeeded Sir Kenneth Newman in August 1987. It behoves the House to pay a warm tribute to Sir Kenneth for the excellent service that he gave the people of London. We shall look back on his commissionership with gratitude in the knowledge that he set the structure and administration of the force in good order. I know that Sir Peter intends to carry on that policy and ensure that the force succeeds in its ultimate objectives.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook once again drew out the Labour party's policy of what he called an elected police authority. It might be helpful if we considered for a moment the nature of the Metropolitan police district, because it involves more than just the policing of London.
  The boundary of the Metropolitan police district includes the 32 London boroughs and eight outer districts. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who represents one of these districts, here today. All told there are 84 London members of Parliament, and eight Members whose constituencies are included, in whole or in part, in the eight outer districts of the Metropolitan police area. Thus, 92 hon. Members in all represent constituencies in the area.
  There is an excellent relationship between Conservative Members and the Commissoner. We look forward to our regular discussions with him and his senior policy group on policing objectives for London.
  Contact takes place not only at the top; it exists with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his capacity as the police authority. No one could be more available or accountable to hon. Members who represent the Metropolitan police district than my right hon. Friend, whose ear is always inclined to us when we wish to communicate our concerns or interests about the progress of the force.
  More importantly for us all and for the people who reside in the Metropolitan police district is the burgeoning contact at local level between the divisional chief superintendents and their staff and the local community in the London boroughs and districts, the neighbourhood

  1387
  watch schemes and local residential associations. Those are the contacts that really matter and it is by means of them that the public can communicate the order of their concerns and priority. As my right hon. Friend has already said, the police must plan their priorities locally.
  It is also important to consider why the Home Secretary is the police authority. It is not only because of the size of the Metropolitan police; it is also because of their additional functions at national and international level. For example, the Metropolitan police have an anti-terrorist branch, a special branch, a royalty and diplomatic protection branch, a national central office for the suppression of counterfeit currency and a national identification bureau. They liaise, on behalf of the police service of the United Kingdom, with Interpol. The serious crimes branch still provides support for major investigations overseas and for murder on the high seas. That is one significant reason why the Metropolitan police, alone among British police forces, must be under the control of, and accountable to, my right hon. Friend who reports directly to this House.
  The cost of the Metropolitan police in the current financial year is more than £1 billion. It is worth considering how that sum is funded. The Home Office police grant provides 51 per cent. What is still quaintly referred to as the imperial national services grant provides 2 per cent. to cover the special services to which I have just referred. Those two items, plus the block grant total 70 per cent., leaving the ratepayers of the 32 London boroughs and the outer districts to find 30 per cent. The Metropolitan police precept for the London boroughs and districts for 1988–89 is more than £309 million, which is 16·5p in the pound—a 9 per cent. increase over 1987–88. Broken down, the figures mean that a Metropolitan police officer costs more than £25,000 a year, which is a great deal of money.
  The force must therefore, in the words of Sir Peter Imbert,
  "place an emphasis upon economy, efficiency and effectiveness."
  We are all realists. We cannot expect the costs of the police to go on rising without regard for the importance of other services. The Commissioner is quite right to emphasise efficiency. I know, too, that the London Boroughs Association is concerned about the increase of 9 per cent. in the precept. It, too, wants value for money of the same kind that it is required to give in the services it provides to its electorates.
  I particularly welcome the Commissioner's 1988 strategy document, which deals with issues that people in London want to be addressed. His reference to continuing to improve the quality of service provided to the public is important, and his reference
  "to improve the support to, and the use of that support by, the operational arm of the Force in order to assist all officers in providing an improved quality of service to the public"
  and a reduction in crime of all kinds is the objective that should be achieved in the year ahead.
  The force's establishment is at a record high of 28,115. That, together with the civil staff ceiling of 13.701, provides a total of 42,000. That makes the Metropolitan police one of the largest police forces in the western world. I welcome the recent increases in the establishment, but I think that future increases must depend upon proven need. As the problems of recruiting in the London area are difficult because of the rising employment prospects, we
  1388
  must be realistic. The force will find it increasingly difficult to find both police and civilian manpower to take up future vacancies. With that in mind, it is essential to examine the existing use of resources and practices.
  I want briefly to discuss two areas that might be considered, one of which lies within the sphere of influence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider with his colleagues in Government, and the other within that of the Commissioner. The first is the use of police resources on what is called the operation of radar guns and radar speed traps in the Metropolitan police area, which takes up a fair amount of the time of the police traffic department.
  I have carefully inquired about what effect those random activities have on the speed limits on our roads. I think that the House will agree that there is no discernible impact on speed. However, the consequence is that a great deal of time, money and effort is spent on what amounts to a giant lottery. Motorists are stopped on a random basis, are prosecuted and fines imposed with little profit either to the police or to the public. The Commissioner should reassess the use of high-cost resources on that task. I venture to suggest that it is so absurd that we could create a sort of premium bond arrangement at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre and just select the names of motorists at random, for all the good that those operations achieve in the reduction of speed.
  The second area, which is within the scope of the Government, is the use of the police for the collection of vehicle excise duty. I am advised that the Metropolitan police annually sends some 250,000 reports of vehicles apparently not having an excise licence to the Department of Transport. That is a large number. In addition, the special exercises carried out from time to time take away the services of expensive police officers on what is essentially a revenue-raising activity. The time has come to transfer the collection of that duty from the excise licence to the price of petrol, thus removing at a stroke no fewer than 12 criminal offences, which also take up the time of the police and are a substantial cost. The police recognise the importance of maintaining a register of the keepers of vehicles, but there are other ways of protecting that position. For example, in Australia and West Germany the identity of the vehicle keeper is tied to the number plate that is obtained on an annual basis, when both the insurance and, where appropriate, the test certificate are checked. It would be possible to create such a system in the United Kingdom. It would be both self-financing and cost-effective, and would, at a stroke, reduce the misuse of police resources, thus releasing existing resources for proper policing duty, which I think the House wants.
  In part, that answers one of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who spoke about the need for about 4,000 more police officers. I think that we should concentrate more directly on how we can make better use of existing resources, and the two proposals that I have made to the House are, perhaps, worthy of consideration.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have a small correction. It was not I who referred to 4,000 more police officers; it was the Commissioner. That is a significant distinction.
  Mr. Wheeler: I was quoting the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it was indeed the previous Commissioner, when assessing potential police needs, who made that

  1389
  point. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands my argument about the better use of resources.
  One of the outstanding stories of recent years has been the involvement of the public in crime prevention. We all agree that the reduction in opportunist property crime, especially burglary, has been brought about by the combination of the police working with the public at all levels—in the local community through the increasingly successful neighbourhood watch schemes, with the business community, with local authorities and so on. That has helped to reduce that part of the crime problem. Most crime in London is petty, random and opportunist, so it is what the public do to help themselves that will reduce the burden of that crime, not necessarily the number of uniformed police patrols.
  The Commissioner has been talking about the special constabulary and he has another idea of how the public can be better involved in helping to reduce crime. The use of the Metropolitan special constabulary should be re-examined to determine what special role it could play as part of the overall package of crime reduction in London. Alas, at the moment we have only about 1,500 special constables for the entire Metropolitan police district. It seems that an increase in public interest in that force would enable the policing of London to be improved still further.
  The Commissioner has studied the special constabulary in Hong Kong, where a bounty is paid to encourage people to participate in its work. A few years ago, on a visit to Singapore, I studied the policing structure there. As the House knows, Singapore is a modern, confined city, with tower blocks, and it has many of the social ingredients of London. In each of the residential tower blocks one resident is a special constable. He is equipped with a uniform; he provides the liaison with the neighbourhood watch scheme; he helps to organise it; he relates to the local beat patrol; and he provides a very effective form of communication.
  We could use and develop the special constabulary in London to perform in a similar way. It could be done without causing the regular police officer concern about non-professional or unpaid people absorbing part of his duties and responsibilities. The special constable does not usurp the functions of the highly trained regular police officer; he or she is merely an aid to the police.
  Despite what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, I believe that the Metropolitan police are making considerable progress in dealing with those crimes that cause great concern to people in London. For example, I welcome the Commissioner's active involvement in dealing with child abuse, and in examining the complex and difficult problems of domestic violence and racial attacks. The mere fact that police have begun to focus more attention on that subject alone means that more of those offences will, of necessity be reported to the police. There has not necessarily been an increase in crime, but it is now being reported and considered as part of the police target and concern.
  The police, too, say that despite advertising about the different ways to make complaints about the police, they are actually receiving more compliments, in writing and by
  1390
  telephone, than complaints. That suggests that the people in London do not view the police in the same way as some Opposition Members.
  I am glad to note that there have been 200 more arrests for crimes of violence this year. It is worth remembering that, again, such crimes are often random. The fact that the overwhelming majority do not involve serious violence does not make these crimes easier to bear for the victim, but they need to be put into perspective. They are random and opportunist and, therefore, even more difficult to clear up, but the police are making progress. Last year, the clear-up rates for crimes involving serious wounding or rape had a 50 per cent. clear-up rate. Those high clear-up figures betoken great effort by the police as well as co-operation from the public. Crime prevention work, through the use of radio and television programmes, helps the public to communicate information to the police.
  Fear of crime can be as damaging as crime itself. Many people, especially the elderly, believe that it is not safe to use the streets of London and that going out in the evening or after dark is somehow more dangerous than going out at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. All that is nonsense. The facts from the police are that those most at risk from violent crime are those whom we would describe as able-bodied young men. Most of these crimes take place in the middle of the afternoon rather than the evening. That is not to say that there are not pockets of London where serious crime affects the elderly and women. This crime is confined to 16 of the 75 Metropolitan police divisions. About 50 per cent. of the serious crime occurs in those areas. The reasons are complex. I do not have the time to go into the details. Suffice it to say that the police are increasingly targeting those specific areas and carrying out a much more detailed analysis into who is at risk, why and what environmental factors contribute. Through that approach, we shall begin to reduce serious crime in some parts of our capital city.
  I conclude on an optimistic note. By any test, the people of London and its millions of visitors live in and visit one of the safest capital cities in the world. Despite what we have heard in the debate, crime rates here remain the lowest in the world, serious crime is contained and, where it occurs, is more certain of being detected than anywhere else in the world. That is a remarkable achievement. All hon. Members subscribe to the aim of continuing that achievement. I thank the Metropolitan police for their service to the people of London in the expectation that its quality will continue in the year ahead.
  11.12 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to debate policing in London, as it is two years since our last proper debate on it. It is regrettable that there are not more hon. Members here to participate.
  I welcome the debate because London is unique in Britain in that it does not have a democratic police authority. Indeed, the police authority—the Home Secretary—has just left the Chamber. It is high time the House addressed this matter. The Greater London council argued forcefully and consistently for the right to have an elected police authority for London that could decide policing policy and tactics. I strongly support the idea of an elected police authority. If it is good enough to have police authorities in other parts of the country—albeit with the limitations that many have—what is it about

  1391
  London that requires it to have a police authority who represents Mid-Oxfordshire and not even a London constituency?
  The money spent by the Metropolitan police is not accountable in any way to Parliament, and that is not good enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is accountable."] Conservative Members claim that it is accountable. Unfortunately, it is not directly accountable. We are debating a motion for the Adjournment of the House. There is to be no vote, and there will be no opportunity for us to go through present or planned police expenditure in detail, and there has never been such an opportunity in the past. The only opportunity to do this is during the debate on the Home Office Estimates.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There may be good reasons why the Home Secretary has had to leave the Chamber, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is evidence of the problem that the police authority for London, who is the Home Secretary, cannot devote the time to be present during the debate on the police for London? Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman, as with any other person in charge of any police authority, should be here for the whole debate. This is not a personal criticism; I am talking about a structural problem—that the police authority for London is the Home Secretary as well.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is extraordinary that, in the first police debate in two years, the police authority for London is apparently unable to remain here for the whole debate. He has left us with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and I do not know whether we should be grateful for that. Presumably the hon. Gentleman has some influence on what the Home Secretary says.
  Page 115 of the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shows that the income last year for the Metropolitan police was £955 million. That is nearly £1 billion, far more than for any other local authority in London—far more than for the Inner London education authority or for the GLC. Is it satisfactory that this level of public expenditure can go ahead in such an unaccountable way?
  The annual report refers to manpower and establishment levels. The Home Secretary said that the police in London were under establishment. The force establishment this year is 27,815 and the force strength is 27,434, so there is only a minor difference. It allows for people leaving, so the force is not seriously under establishment.
  I note that the force establishment has increased consistently year on year. In 1977, it was 26,628, and in 1983 it was 26,915. Conservative Members consistently claim that local authorities in London are over-staffed for the decreasing population, yet the police force in London has gone up year on year for that same decreasing population—and, frankly, there has not been an enormous improvement in the crime clear-up rates.
  Mr. Dicks: Surely there is a distinction to be made. An experienced officer may resign or leave to join another force, and it takes time for his replacement to get the necessary training and experience.
  Mr. Corbyn: I well understand that, when a senior officer resigns and joins another force and is eventually replaced by a younger recruit on promotion, the force has
  1392
  lost one person of great experience and possibly gained one of less experience. Nevertheless, the force is near its establishment level, which has consistently gone up.
  I have not been able to work out by what means police establishment figures are fixed. Deployment of officers was one point made in the arguments for democracy and control of the police force. Many of us would argue that there should be many more officers on the beat and more local involvement by the police force, yet I detect within the police expenditure figures a greater propensity by the police to spend more money on high technology and to undertake more motorised policing, which is far less effective than other means and often becomes intimidatory. When I hear sirens at midnight on police cars screaming up and down Seven Sisters road, keeping me awake, I wonder what on earth they are doing of value when there is no traffic hold-up through which they need to make their way.
  I should also draw attention to the clear-up rate for crimes in the Metropolitan area. Table D on page 92 of the report shows that the rate has remained consistently at 16 per cent. In some areas, it is much higher and that is very welcome, but the basic clear-up rate has not improved much at all.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The 16 per cent. clear-up rate for London must be put into perspective. The national rate is 33 per cent., and even that is poor compared with 1980, when it was 40 per cent. The clear-up rate has decreased substantially since the Government came to office.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative politicians seem to spend every weekend making speeches about the problems of law and order. Next year, unfortunately, will be the 10th anniversary of the Conservatives coming to office. It is not good enough for them to complain that everything wrong in society is due to what happened before 1979, when they have been in office for 10 years, during which violent crime and crime generally have increased and the clear-up rate has not improved substantially. We need some straightforward honesty from Ministers and their supporters.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Some hope!
  Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, that may well be a faint hope. Nevertheless, we should at least see some humility on the part of the law and order lobby, given that lawlessness and serious crime have increased. Commercial crime and City fraud have increased exponentially since the Government came to office, but the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) probably favours that, as she seems to support a free-enterprise economy in ticket fiddling at Wimbledon.
  The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned various forms of crime and follow-up rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) rightly drew attention to the increase in the reporting of racial incidents and attacks in London and to the slight increase in the clear-up rate. I still believe strongly that a large number of offences which clearly come within that category are not reported or recorded as such, either because people are not aware that they can report them as

  1393
  such if they believe them to be primarily racially motivated or because of reluctance on the part of police officers at certain stations to do so.
  I believe that there is serious under-reporting of racial incidents and attacks in London. In this debate, we must make it absolutely clear that racial attacks and racism in any form are totally unacceptable and that it should be the highest possible priority for the police to ensure that the culprits are brought to book at the earliest possible opportunity. Unless the police make it clear that this is a high priority, the signal will go out to the racists in society that the police do not regard it as a major crime or a matter of the highest priority. It must be made absolutely clear that racial violence is not acceptable at all in this city or anywhere else.
  Another important issue mentioned by the Home Secretary is the incidence of rape, other sexual violence and domestic violence. The number of cases reported has increased in recent years, but I believe that a substantial number of women who suffer rape or other sexual attack still feel, for various reasons, unable or unwilling to report the offence to the police. It thus does not appear as a recorded offence and cannot be followed up because the police do not even know about it. Far more thought needs to be given to the protection of women on the streets of London at night and to a system of reporting, following up and investigating incidents which does not put the woman concerned under further stress or difficulty. The police could then be encouraged to follow the matter up, as I believe that there is still serious under-reporting of such offences.
  A related but no less important issue arises from the fact that local authorities in London have suffered badly from Government policies and expenditure cuts. Women's refuges and women's aid and advice centres have been seriously affected, and many are having difficulty making ends meet. The funding problem for them is as serious as it is for law centres and other advice centres. The continual increase in police establishment and expenditure without a corresponding increase in the clear-up rate throughout London should be seen in comparison with central Government's continual criticism of local government and the cuts in expenditure which have destroyed local authorities' ability to provide many necessary services.
  That must be brought to the attention of the House, because crime cannot be separated from social factors. It is time that the Government realised that high unemployment and homelessness have an effect on drunkenness, alcoholism, drug-taking and crime. It is no use the Government preaching against a lawless and criminal society if they encourage crimes such as commercial fraud, as the hon. Member for Billericay apparently does, and do nothing about the awful social divisions and deprivation which are increasing year by year and day by day in London.
  Just a short distance from the House, by Waterloo station, a little bonfire burns every night as a group of homeless men try to keep warm. That is the only place they have to sleep, just as others sleep in cardboard boxes under Charing Cross station. Those are the social divisions that now exist in London.
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman makes a fascinating argument, but he should get his act together with the
  1394
  Labour Front Bench spokesman. We were told earlier that the problem was caused by affluence and prosperity. We are now told that it is due to poverty and deprivation. The Labour party should think its policies through and speak with one voice.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and mine as well. He seems not to appreciate that there is a correlation between crude yuppies buying Porsches in the City and the number of people sleeping on the street. The tax rip-offs that are used to buy second homes, swimming pools and extended holidays mean an increase in the number of people sleeping on the street because there is insufficient public expenditure to provide housing for them. The Tories have always supported the creed which blames poverty on the poor. We believe that the poor are the victims of the society created by the Conservatives and the Government whom they so avidly support.
  Mr. Wilshire: Last time the subject of homelessness was aired, the Salvation Army in London said that there was no need for anyone to be homeless.
  Mr. Corbyn: There would indeed be no need for anyone to be homeless if a large number of previously privately rented houses were not deliberately kept empty by property speculaters as a result of Government policies.It is sheer hypocrisy for Tory Members to blame the poor unfortunate people who have to sleep in cardboard boxes when they themselves put those people on the street, splash them every night as they drive past in their Porsches and kick dirt in the faces of the poor. They are the people to blame for the situation faced by so many people in London, and it is a matter of grave concern.
  In my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends there is a terrible homelessness problem. What has the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) to say to the homeless men thrown out of bedsits in which they had lived for years and forced to sleep in the street in the most undignified way because they cannot afford the private sector rents that the Conservatives are so keen to jack up to extortionate levels? I appreciate that the debate is about policing in London, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but other matters are revelant and I do not apologise for digressing, as I am sure that you understand why I feel so strongly about this subject.
  Discussions have taken place between Labour Members and the Home Secretary and the Commissoner of Police of the Metropolis, and various other meetings have taken place about the events which occurred during the printing dispute at Wapping. The background is that the subsidised entrepreneur Rupert Murdoch came in and destroyed 5,000 jobs, moved his printing industry to Wapping and was then surprised that there were objections to this and a year-long dispute with the printing unions.
  The activities of the police during that year merit close examination. I often attended the picket line at Wapping and I saw what happened on 24 January. A large crowd gathered peacefully, most of it at a rally to hear the problems suffered by print workers because they had lost their jobs. We heard how they were being treated after giving a lifetime of service to newspaper printing in Fleet street. There was continual police provocation throughout

  1395
  the evening. Police horses were consistently ridden straight into the crowd, which was hemmed in by gates. The violence was disgraceful and shocking.
  We know that there have been investigations within the Metropolitan police, and I understand that the findings have been reported to the Home Secretary. Complaints were entered against more than 100 officers. They were sifted by the Northamptonshire police, and some cases have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We understand that the DPP is now considering what action to take against certain officers.
  This is the appropriate time for the Minister to tell us what action will be taken. It does the public's confidence in policing in London no good still to have no public statement 18 months later. If police officers wantonly committed acts of violence, we need to know about it. It is in the interests of the police that the officers' names should be made known, and that we should know what action is to be taken.
  We have raised with the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the influence of freemasonry in the police force in London. The Home Office is well aware of that influence, and it must be aware of the article in The Independent of 19 February by James Dalrymple, who explained in some detail the Manor of St. James's Lodge, which is composed entirely of members of the Metropolitan police.
  Many of us are gravely suspicious about the influence of freemasonry. I am utterly opposed to it and to the influence of other secret organisations because I believe them to be a deeply corrupting influence on society. That influence has been highlighted by the case of Chief Inspector Woollard who investigated allegations of incompetence and misconduct by a building contractor working for the London borough of Islington. During his investigation, he discerned considerable masonic influence among officials in the company and in the local authority. As he came closer to concluding that the influence of freemasonry in the administration of the contract had been great, he was removed from the case and sent to the Metropolitan police's equivalent of running a power station in Siberia.
  Masonic influence is serious. The Commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, has made it clear that he is not a mason and that he is concerned about masonic influences. I have here a list, for 1986, of members of the Manor of St. James's Lodge, No. 9179 of the masonic order, which starts with the right hon. Lord Farnham, who is the leader of the lodge. There are many people on the list. I shall not read it all, as it would take too long, but I shall give the first few names, as I assume that they are highly placed in the hierarchy, although I cannot pretend to be an expert on masonic procedures. The list begins:
  "The Rt. Hon. Lord Farnham, Sir Peter Lane, Norman M. Jacobs, The Rev. Dr. Michael Morgan, Cdr. Michael B.S. Higham, Peter G. Lowndes, Peter C. Neivens, Lt. Cdr. Norman J. Nuttall."
  There are 30 other names of people who I understand to be employees of the Metropolitan police or senior officers in it.
  Is it not a danger to society that such a lodge exists, and apparently has great influence? I am worried that Chief Inspector Woollard was able to uncover what appears to have been serious corruption. He strongly believed that
  1396
  masonic influences were at work, but when he was about to bring his inquiry to a conclusion, he was pulled off it. He is no longer a member of the police force.
  We need a clear statement from the Home Secretary an which he makes it clear that he opposes masonic influences of any sort and that police officers should be asked to sign a declaration of interests and membership of organisations such as many local authority officers and councillors are asked to sign, Freemasonry is incompatible with being a police officer.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I am not a freemason and know nothing about freemasonry, so I have no axe to grind, but when the hon. Gentleman talks about "masonic influences", he draws enormous inferences. He ought briefly to explain what he means by masonic influences.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am suggesting that the power of a masonic lodge on any organisation is sinister and insidious. If an organisation decides to discipline an employee or one of its members, and that person happens to be a freemason and others in the organisation are also freemasons, they decide to get together to sort the problem out among themselves, and the person involved gets off scot free. Although that is a hypothetical example, it illustrates the power of secret organisations such as freemasons.
  Conservative Members are concerned about justice and integrity, so they should be anxious about the power of freemasons. I ask them to join me in suggesting that membership of a lodge is incompatible with being an officer in the Metropolitan police.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why such a high incidence of membership of a lodge gives rise to concern is the allegation, which goes back many years, that because senior police officers are members of the same lodge as criminals, some criminals get off?
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has highlighted the problem. If people get together in secret organisations, they are open to any form of blackmail. Any decision made by that body is not in the public domain, and cannot be, by that body's very nature.
  Mr. Wilshire: Let me make it clear that I am not a freemason, either. If the allegations that the hon. Gentleman makes are true, I share his concern. But, if he makes wild allegations and says that they are hypothetical, it is incumbent on him to give us the facts so that we can judge. If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about secret organisations and their influence, perhaps he would care to condemn Militant while he is about it.
  Mr. Corbyn: Although interventions take time from my speech and from the debate, I shall readily give way to any hon. Member who cares to announce that he is not a member of the freemasons. Some interesting declarations have been made. If any of the few remaining Conservative Members present wish to say that they are not freemasons I shall happily give way.
  I remind Conservative Members that what I have said about the case of Chief Inspector Woollard and the influence of freemasonry on the police is not particularly new. The case was made in The Independent and there was a "World in Action" programme on the subject. The

  1397
  matter has been raised several times with the Home Secretary and with the Commissioner, and the London group of Labour Members is due to meet Sir Peter Imbert again to discuss this very subject.
  I referred to the Manor of St. James's Lodge. A report prepared by the police committee support unit of the London borough of Islington, which deals with freemasonry in the Metropolitan police, says:
  "The Manor of St. James's Lodge (No. 9179) was consecrated on 27 January 1986, after the Commissioner's advice had been issued."
  The House will note the word "after".
  "It has been suggested that this lodge was established as a direct snub to the Commissioner. Appendix A shows a meeting of the lodge in November 1986 and includes a list of its members. These papers have been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  The Manor of St. James's Lodge was founded by Brethren, all of whom had served as police officers in 'C' or St. James's District of the Metropolitan Police. The term Manor was the colloquial expression used by police officers when referring to the District of place of duty. The lodge was sponsored, appropriately, by Prior Walter Lodge No. 8687, a lodge comprised by members of the order of St. John which has a close affinity with the police service."
  These matters are very serious and I hope that the Minister will condemn the influence of freemasonry and the police officers of the Metropolitan police who are members of freemasonic lodges and that he will state once again that membership of the freemasons is incompatible with public service in the Metropolitan police or anywhere else. It is an insidious force in society.
  My constituency, like those of other hon. Members, suffers considerable social deprivation and problems of crime—housebreaking, violence and burglary. It is important that policing resources should be made available to deal with those problems. I am not convinced, however, that the resources are necessarily directed towards solving those problems or that sufficient sensitivity is shown by the police in dealing with public complaints, or in their attitudes.
  I shall conclude as I started: if we are to have in London a police force that costs nearly £1 billion a year, it is perfectly right that the people of London should have some say in the way in which that force is run, in the direction of resources of that police force and in the tactics, policies and methods used. That is not posible while the police authority for London is one person—the Home Secretary, who cannot even find time to stay for the one debate that we have had in two years on policing in London. Perhaps it is a vain hope, but I ask the Government at least to consider the need for an elected police authority for London. But perhaps the return of democracy in London will have to await the return of a Labour Government.
  11.45 am
  Mr. Nigel Forman: The House will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) into his Mozartian fascination with masonry. My only comment on his speech arises from an interesting point that he made near the beginning, which was more germane to our debate. He spoke of the declining population of Greater London and argued, by implication, that Conservative Members need no longer be so
  1398
  concerned about police establishment levels and the attainment of those levels. He tried to give the impression that the ratio of police to population was bound to improve and, hence, that law and order would improve because of the declining population of Greater London. That may be true in general, but in parts of the very large Metropolitan police area—notably in the Wallington sub-division, which is more or less conterminous with my constituency—the population has been expanding rapidly in recent years and, with that, the opportunities for crime have increased. We need to consider different parts of the Metropolitan police area in their own right, rather than considering the area in aggregate.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke at length about the new crime-screening procedures recently introduced by the Commissioner. While I did not agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said, a number of my constituents share his anxiety about the crime-screening procedures. Relations between police and public must be good and the public must have confidence in the police. Therefore, it is important that those procedures, necessary as they may be, should be fully explained to the law-abiding public. If they are not, public confidence in the police may be undermined.
  I associate myself with the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) paid to the previous Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman and welcome the well-deserved honour given to Sir Peter Imbert, the new Commissioner. I very much approve of Sir Peter's major force goals for the coming year, especially the emphasis on reducing criminal opportunity, the enhanced detection of robbery, burglary and vandalism, and the enhanced support for the victims of crime, as well as his determination to achieve further improvements in public order.
  My remarks will fall under four separate headings. First, I shall consider the sort of crimes that are being committed in the Metropolitan police area, particularly in the Wallington sub-division. Secondly, I shall consider the sort of people who seem to be committing those crimes. Thirdly I shall examine how well the Metropolitan police seem to be dealing with the problems, and, finally, I shall express a few thoughts on what more could and should be done.
  I shall deal first with the crimes that are being committed—particularly those of most concern to my constituents. Between 1986 and 1987 street robberies increased by 13 per cent. In hard figures in my area that meant an increase from 64 such notified offences to 96. That is a matter of great concern because it helps to breed the feeling of personal insecurity that has already been mentioned. I welcome the fact that the burglary figures fell by 4 per cent. in the Metropolitan area in the year in question and that in my sub-division they fell from 1,840 notified offences to 1,521 in the same period. However, the figures are still far too high. The offence of burglary is of intense concern to those who live in the nice residential areas—indeed all residential areas—of my constituency, who feel insecure because of it.
  The third aspect of crime, and one which I cannot stress too much, is the importance of dealing with vandalism and criminal damage to property. Again, I welcome the fact that the figures show a small fall in the metropolitan area

  1399
  of 2 per cent. for the period in question. However, they are still far too high. In the Wallington sub-division, crimes of vandalism increased during 1986–87.
  The fourth issue on which I should like to concentrate is what we might call alcohol-related offences, including drinking and driving, assaults on persons, street disturbances and various forms of damage to property. All those cause serious concern to my constituents, especially when they appear to be related to under-age drinking. I should like the Government to be tougher and to give even more of a lead on this problem.
  When we consider who seems to be committing most of the crimes about which my constituents are most concerned, it is absolutely clear from the official statistics that young people commit a disproportionate number of offences—by that I mean those under the age of 21, and principally young males.
  On page 43 of the Commissioner's report for this year, and under the heading, "Characteristics of offenders", an interesting short paragraph states:
  "People aged under 21 years accounted for a disproportionate number of notifiable offences. Consistent with a long-established pattern, the age group 10 to 20 years, which is about 15 per cent. of the population of London, was recorded responsible for almost half (44 per cent.) of the notifiable offences. Clear majorities of people arrested in the offence groups of robbery, burglary and going equipped and motor vehicle theft were 20 years or under. In excess of two-thirds of those arrested for motor theft were 20 or under and almost one-third were 16 years or under."
  The House should pay great attention to that serious point. More specifically, many of those young people are under the influence of alcohol when they commit such offences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said, many are opportunist offences. However, too often the perpetrators are found to be carrying knives and, regrettably, in some cases—by definition with those under the age of 16—are out of school without permission. They are playing truant and are, as it were, absent without leave. That is serious because when one examines the figures more closely one finds that this young age group, representing 15 per cent. of total notifiable offences, is responsible for 26 per cent. of all notifiable offences of robbery, for 24 per cent. of burglaries, and for 27 per cent. of motor vehicle thefts.
  How well are the Metropolitan police seeking to deal with those various priority problems? The answer is that the police are doing their level best in difficult circumstances. I know that from my personal experience, because I take great pains to stay in close touch with the police officers at every level in my part of south London, as I am sure do all my hon. Friends in their constituencies. I also attach great value to our frequent and useful meetings with the Home Secretary, the police authority, and the Commissioner himself.
  However, the most pressing problems still seem to be growing. To present a balanced picture, one must congratulate the Metropolitan police on the high clear-up rate that they manage, especially in some of the most critical areas, and for the more serious offences. For the year that we are considering in this debate, the 1987 report states that 180 out of 194 homicides were cleared up, and for drug trafficking, the figure is 1,905 out of 1,906. Therefore, only one such offence was not cleared up. That is an admirable record and a tribute to the effectiveness of establishing a clear scale of priorities in line with the seriousness of the offences.
  1400
  However, on the other side of the coin, and as the hon. Member for Islington, North stated, it remains disappointing to me and to my constituents that in other vital areas about which there is equal public concern, the clear-up rates remain low. I do not say that in an anti-police sense, but we—police and public together—must find ways of improving the clear-up rates in the Metropolitan police area.
  Mr. Wheeler: It is very good of my hon. Friend to give way on this point. I think that he will agree that there is one important factor which the House should bear in mind on the question of clear-up rates. The difference between the Metropolitan police clear-up rate and that of the provincial forces is that the Metropolitan police do not seek to pursue other offences in prisons, thus increasing the clear-up rate, whereas the provincial forces do. That changes the distortion of the clear-up pattern in London.
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am aware of the distinction which is drawn in the Commissioner's report between the so-called primary clear-up rate and secondary clear-up rates. That bears upon the point which he has helpfully made.
  I am seeking to speak on behalf of the vast majority of my constituents, from all walks of life, and must place on record for the benefit of the House the fact that the clear-up rates in the Metropolitan police district of 12 per cent. for robbery, 9 per cent. for burglary and 11 per cent. for criminal damage, still cause great concern. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to the debate, he will be able to offer to the House some reassuring words to show the serious way in which the Government view the figures.
  Therefore, it is welcome and all the more important that the Metropolitan police themselves have made special efforts to deal with those offences where the record of clear-up seems to be least satisfactory. I was particularly pleased to see in the report, which I read carefully, that arrests for robbery increased by 27 per cent. during the year in question, and that there was an increase of 6 per cent. in arrests for burglary. Clearly, arrests are part of the answer but we all realise that in the complexities of justice, it is one thing to secure an arrest but it is much more important and, in many cases, much more difficult, to secure clear up and conviction.
  As the Member of Parliament for Carshalton and Wallington, which, as I have already said, is almost conterminous with the Wallington subdivision of the Metropolitan police area, I am especially pleased that Chief Superintendent Peter Lockley has stated in his divisional report, which I read in advance of the debate, that he intends to make special efforts to combat the problem of vandalism. It is a serious problem in the Wallington sub-division and one to which he intends to give high priority in the coming year. I support him entirely in that objective. Although offences against property are not as serious as offences against the person, one never knows whether the kind of behaviour that gives rise to offences against property from young people acting in a loutish and irresponsible way might not spill over into terrorising old ladies or possibly even offences against the person.
  What more could and should be done? We need a three-pronged approach. First, we need to encourage and assist the general public to pay even more attention to

  1401
  crime prevention than they are doing already. We know of the efforts made by the Home Office, and I commend the Home Office for launching a series of useful initiatives in this area. However, more could still be done by insurance companies, ordinary householders, motorists—indeed, by all involved. We can make our homes and cars more secure. We can make efforts to keep children in school and combat the problem of truancy to which I have already referred. We can deal more firmly with the social problems of alcohol and drug abuse. We can continue the welcome trend about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke earlier of getting more officers more visibly on the beat, because that is an inherent part of crime prevention.
  The second prong must be to make sure that we have enough police with more either on the beat or available for effective quick response in targeting special needs and using specialist squads to deal with acute crime problems. It is obvious that the vast swathe of the most serious crime which shows up most noticeably in the statistics, especially in my part of south London, is perpetrated by a small number of villains. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that.
  When the police are able to catch and charge a particularly active villain or gang of villains who have committed a robbery or burglary, it is amazing how, for a period at any rate, the crime figures go down encouragingly as a result of all the other offences that often have to be taken into account when the matter goes before the court. There is therefore an important role for specialist squads and the reassuring presence of the officer on the beat.
  I am glad to hear that the Metropolitan police is now nearly up to its full establishment level and that the Home Secretary has been successful in securing more resources for effective policing. He and his ministerial colleagues are absolutely right to insist on getting better value for money and better distribution of the available resources, whatever may be on offer at any time. In that context, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North was right to draw attention to the two or three matters of which he has special knowledge, to deal with the treatment of potential motor offences. I hope that my hon. Friend's proposals will be seriously considered.
  With changes in society in modern times and changing public attitudes to law and order, which go together with increased opportunities for crime, we shall need even higher and more effective policing levels in the Metropolitan area. I refer to officers on the beat and specialist squads in particular.
  I shall not enter into the controversy to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook devoted some time about whether or not an extra 2,500 officers are needed. The Commissioner has a clear duty to make the most efficient possible use of the manpower and womanpower at his disposal and to continue the process of civilianisation, which is obviously necessary. At the same time, when he makes a case to the Home Secretary and, through him, to the Government for increasing establishment levels, he must ensure that his case is made unimpeachably and on the best possible basis. The combination of increasing affluence—affluence which has increased greatly in the 1980s—juxtaposed with declining social attitudes towards
  1402
  law and order among some groups in society, is a potentially explosive mix. Although it is a controversial subject, more thought should be given to it. If we can get more detections, arrests and convictions, we shall make the point to the general public that the surest deterrence is greater certainty of being caught and punished for an offence.
  The last prong of my argument is that, obviously, Parliament has a duty to make great efforts to ensure that the legislative framework that is provided for the police is appropriate, so that they have the extra powers they they need to police our streets and the great city of London. I am pleased with the recent initiative in the Criminal Justice Bill about the carrying of knives and sharp instruments. It is good that the Government recognise the critical importance of providing the courts with the widest possible range of appropriate penalties—everything from non-custodial sentences to stiff, long determinate sentences for those who are convicted of the most serious crimes. The Government have been doing that over the past nine years. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues for their excellent initiatives in that regard.
  Combating crime is everyone's responsibility. Our excellent police in the Metropolitan area cannot achieve the desired results without the full support of politicians, the judiciary, magistrates, the media and the general public. I pledge my support to the police serving this large area. I commend them on their efforts during the year in question.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Few people could disagree with the worthy generalisations of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) whose speech I endorse. But, alas, the Government's philosophy and that of the great majority of Conservative Members is not capable of fulfilling his worthy generalisations. The majority of members of the ruling party consider that, in itself, public expenditure is bad or, at least, too great. That philosophy is becoming all-pervasive and destroys the quality of many things in our lives. There is some unity in the House about the need for more resources and more effective policing activity, even though we may criticise some aspects of how it is conducted. I refer Conservative Members to the fundamental philosophical jam into which they have got themselves.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment is disrupting local taxation and introducing a poll tax, to focus people's minds on local expenditure, when rates in London provide a big chunk of Metropolitan police expenditure, which we now know is about £1,000 million. That is why I intervened during the Home Secretary's speech. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will return to that theme. Unless remedied or, at least, assisted by the central business rate or the Exchequer, the imposition of the poll tax will put a stopper on some of the things that nearly all hon. Members have called for today. It is a central anomaly of the Government's policy that Conservative Members should seriously consider. That anomaly is serious in respect of the police and even more serious in respect of other services.
  I shall be something of a vox-pop. Many of the things that I say will echo what the man or woman in the street

  1403
  say in respect of the Metropolitan police. I do not wish to be unfriendly, as the vast majority of policemen try to do a good job. I shall express how I believe the police often appear to those whom they serve. I shall try to introduce some constructive suggestions about how things can be improved. The theme is from the pavement up, rather than the other way round. Often, in every sphere of life, there are big generalisations at the top, but we should start the other way round.
  A large proportion of the time spent by most policemen, including senior people, involves talking to other policemen. We see young policemen and policewomen in fast, expensive motor cars full of electronic equipment, and groups of younger policemen in vans. That must be—things are changing—but we must examine what happens to the ordinary person who goes into a police station. What arrangements are there for his reception?
  I recall going into a police station that was designed in 1938. It has far superior reception arrangements than a police station in Plaistow, which has just been built at enormous public expenditure in the middle of my constituency. What thought has been given to the public-police interface, when the public go to the police, rather than when the police go to the public? There are training courses at Hendon to instruct police on how to approach the public in the street. There must be proper arrangements for the public to go to police stations. Some years ago, I asked the police to set up a little sub-police station in Freemasons road, Custom House, in my constituency. They said, "Yes, it is a jolly good idea. We shall try to do it." There were money complications. They had to get permission from the local council to try to rent a shop, and then there were security problems. The matter has been dragging on for three or four years. We are now to get a little police sub-station in the area, cut off from the rest of Newham, but in another road, and it will be rather bigger and probably more expensive than would have been necessary. All the correspondence and meetings that I have had with junior and senior policemen about the matter appear to make some fuss. I do not make a great complaint, but, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of administration, one often has to ask why it happened like that.
  Like many hon. Members, I have the privilege of occupying a room in Norman Shaw north. That room was occupied about 100 years ago by Inspector Lestrade and, perhaps, some of his colleagues. It was purpose-built and designed by the architect Norman Shaw. I understand that Scotland Yard No. 3 was taken over as a converted office block. I have met many senior policemen who make great complaints about the modifications and the difficulties that they have had with Scotland Yard No. 3. Why is it that in the 1870s or 1880s a purpose-built building, which is still a magnificent place, was designed for the police, but in the latter half of this century they have a building which had to be adapted and in which there was a bit of a cock-up? That does not produce a great deal of confidence in what I would call the macro-organisation.
  I shall return to the micro-organisation. The Home Secretary and I had a bit of a spat about Newham and about the statutory borough consultative committee which we are about to set up. I understand why the Home Secretary said what he did. But he has to understand that if there is to be an effective consultative committee, the constitution of that committee and the basis on which it
  1404
  works must be effective. It is no good having a shapeless, formless organisation, which meets every month or so for a natter and nothing really happens, or one to which everyone can come and in which there is no continuity and no degree of responsibility. I must tell the Home Secretary, albeit in his absence, that that was proposed.
  I have been to many police public relations exercises. I do not blame them for taking professional advice from public relations advisers for their campaigns. They lay on exhibitions or hold conferences and invite everyone. I have been to quite a few of those events. There is a lot of good will around but it does not really get anywhere.
  The constitution that we have worked out in Newham, after a lot of discussion, will get to grips with local problems. There were difficulties in deciding that constitution. Of course strong personalities are involved and differences of opinion. A certain senior police officer who is a well-known personality in east London has played some part in the protracted negotiations, which, fortunately, have now reached a conclusion. I put it to the Home Secretary, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree, that the time taken will pay off. We now have a structure which will really get to grips with some local matters and therefore it will be more successful than if we were to start off with an airy-fairy, fuzzy organisation which, quite frankly, would not have done the job.
  When hon. Members attend an organisation or committee which has to thrash out some difficulty, when we meet the people with whom we thought we were wholly in opposition, over a cup of tea or a chat we find that we were under some misapprehension, and they find that they were under some misapprehension. Over some time spent getting to know each other, we can reach some commonsense results, which would not have happened without that institution. That will develop in the local groups, if they are given a good start.
  I shall now turn to some of the practical problems that will face our committee in Newham and other Committees throughout the country. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned the problem of young people. That problem is not new. For centuries, young people have tended to group together. That has existed throughout history; it existed when we were young. It is nothing new. however, some of the activities in which young people indulge are new—motor cars, drugs, alcohol and so on. At least, the problem of alcohol is very much to the fore. I recall sitting on committees considering licensing Bills when people were not too concerned about our control of that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who I am glad to see present, has introduced a Bill. But I am sure that my hon. Friend and other all hon. Members will agree that much of this is a matter of local common sense.
  Let us consider the management of licensed premises. The quality of the management of licensed premises varies a great deal. In the Committee considering the Licensing Bill I made the suggestion, which was recived with interest, that one condition of a licence is that a licensee puts up a list of 10 or 20 people, one of whom will be nominated to be in charge in his absence. I did not press it in the most recent Licensing Bill, but it would be helpful if that idea were put into statute at a later date. The law is not always the answer, it is a matter of commonsense discussion as to how we can ensure that the badly managed houses, which are in a minority, do not add to social disruption when the majority of houses and clubs are very well managed. How

  1405
  can we make sure that we maintain and improve that level of management? It cannot be done entirely by statute. The local statutory availability must be used to deal with local situations.
  Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the scheme known as pub watch which has some relevance to this and which is referred to in the Commissioner's report?
  Mr. Spearing: I am not entirely aware of the details of it, but I would hesitate to introduce yet another organisation. I am advocating that the discussions in local committees in London should find out the administrative pinch points. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Not long ago I found that there was an administrative difficulty in the serving of warrants when people had not surrendered to bail, particularly when they had been charged with actual bodily harm. If a person who is charged with that offence does not surrender to bail, something is very badly wrong. I am not criticising magistrates for granting bail, because we know the difficulties of accommodation, but the police have to take action. It may be that in some circumstances the police, or the new public prosecution service, are not as swift as they might be. The citizens then quite rightly get hot under the collar. They say, "The public ought to get at that tearaway. What will he do next?"
  When people come to me worrying about capital offences, I say that some people may be at risk from their own feelings or, in a situation which is fuelled by alcohol, at risk of committing a capital offence. We must prevent that. A great deal of commonsense work can be done on the ground to prevent the spread of violence, through the identification of situations where violence is likely to break out. That should be done in committees by people of good will who have authority getting together to deal with it. We should improve the quality of communication, administration and action.
  Following what the Prime Minister said at Toronto, the quality of society is not dependent on the market. One cannot get a consultancy in quality of the community or in the quality of family life. The essence of the quality of our community life is not susceptible to market forces. Alas, in sphere after sphere, the Government are introducing the intensification of market forces which will increase the tendency towards difficulties and violence.
  Let us take housing as an example. I shall not take this too far, as we shall discuss it on Monday, but difficulties in housing cause pressure on families and problems between parents and young people, which add to local problems. The Government are not assisting community life through many of the economic pressures which they are now introducing and which did not exist before they came into office. As a result, the police and the public have to clear up the mess.
  There is a logical and practical example of that which involves housing. I understand that the Metropolitan police force is now under orders from the Government to sell off police housing. There is a lot of police housing in Newham, scattered around and in groups. I understood that police housing—not section housing but housing in streets—was provided to give a start to policemen who wanted to do a good job, live in the community, and send their kids to the local schools. I see the hon. Member for
  1406
  Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is indicating dissent. If he wishes to intervene I will give way later. I understood that this is what many policemen wanted to do. Like many of us, they may want ultimately to buy their own houses. However, when they start off in a new area, or are moved around as a result of promotion, police housing is a useful social tool.
  The Government's order to sell off such housing seems to me to be designed to reduce police quality. It reduces the options available to senior policemen when they want to move their people around. It reduces the choices for policemen when deciding whether to rent, take a tied house, go for sectional housing, buy, or go in with their in-laws. Therefore, it prejudices good policing, morale and the consistency and experience of older policemen that we want so badly in London. In any occupation, experience of the job is vitally important, and the Government's policy of selling off police housing is contrary to their stated aim of improving the quality of policing in London.
  Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why experienced policemen are leaving London is that they have better housing, better education for their children and a better life away from the city? Why should they be expected to live, for example, in the middle of Brixton if their natural way of life does not tie up with the culture of Brixton? It does not mean to say that they are bad policemen or policewomen if they do not want to live there. They have a right to choose where they live as against where they are sent to work.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. It is that if the police have at their disposal a range of accommodation that can be made available to policemen, the choice for policemen is greater. The more housing is available, the better the choice of community in which to live. Policemen may not wish to live in the area in which they carry out their duties. If their duties are in Brixton, they may want to live in Croydon—that is up to them. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding.
  No doubt, the Under-Secretary will tell me whether the Metropolitan police have chosen to sell off these houses rather than being ordered to do so by the Government. I suspect that it is the latter, because of the Government's overall barmy philosophy of selling off anything that is publicly owned. They are fundamentally reducing the quality of policing in London. It will show up well in the accounts, and it may even show value for money and all that nonsense. We must have value for money, but good will and loyalty cannot be priced. Even the Prime Minister would agree with that. The Government must look at this, and I hope that they will reverse the policy.
  One aspect of policing that is rarely talked about, particularly in the House, although it is an important part of the responsibility of the Metropolitan police, is traffic management. When we think of traffic management and the Metropolitan police, we think of royal occasions, the opening of Parliament, public processions, blokes on motor bikes and all the rest of it. I have had the experience of seeing how Commonwealth countries do these things, and visiting Members of Parliament are often given a motor cycle escort. If one talks to the chaps afterwards, they say, "We were trained by the Met." The Metropolitan police force is excellent at doing this—it

  1407
  world leader—but when it comes to traffic management in general, things go wrong, and I am not sure that it is so good.
  East London has many traffic problems, largely because of the Government's terrible neglect of strategic planning. I will not go into that, but it shows a terrible lack of civic pride. The Blackwall tunnel is frequently closed for repairs and on other occasions, for some reason, the traffic cannot use it in both directions. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport has explained to me why that is so, but it is a great pity. When it happens, it causes immense problems. I cycle, so it is not bad for me, but many people are frustrated, and there is not a policeman in sight. Flyovers are closed, and there is not a policeman in sight. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the local authority to tell the police when there is to be a difficulty so that someone can sort out the trouble and stop the traffic from jamming.
  If something happens in the streets around here, in two ticks, because of the traffic management, everything clogs up. That is not surprising because 15 or 20 years ago, the Greater London council organised traffic flows in London so that about 20 or 30 per cent. more traffic could move through the existing streets. That was a good thing. The GLC introduced parking controls, clearways, gyratory systems and other schemes in a skilled operation. However, if a lorry breaks down at the crucial point, or the lights go wrong, or there is an accident, everything jams very quickly. The police are not good at making sure that there is somebody not too far away so that when that happens the traffic is unjammed as quickly as possible.
  There is a lot of talk about London jamming up, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that in normal circumstances it is. However, when there is an abnormal circumstance, the repurcussions are great. The police should pay more attention to clearing away those breakdowns and dealing with accidents or jams caused when roads are up for repairs or so that adjustments can be made by the traffic boys at Scotland Yard.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I would favour much stricter penalties being imposed on lorry operators who badly load their lorries, or badly maintain them with the result that they break down or shed their load, causing traffic congestion. The penalties imposed on lorry contractors bear no relationship to the costs that they have imposed on Londoners.
  Mr. Spearing: I agree and I can give two examples about which the man in the street should know. I assume that when a lorry breaks down, the police have some arrangement with a contractor—they do not have heavy breakdown vehicles of their own—so that the lorry can be moved as quickly as possible. Even those of us who take an interest in this matter do not know what this organisation is. However, this is a critical matter, and if matters were organised properly, people would know that such and such a squad was responsible. We all know the contractors who move badly parked cars, because they are visible, but we do not know what happens when there is a lorry breakdown. Those are commonsense matters in which the people of London want a visible improvement.
  We have a problem in east London with local parking because of bad planning. Many people are driving to and parking at the local underground station. In Plaistow many people from the new docklands development are causing difficulties for residents by parking in residential
  1408
  streets around the station and going up to London to work. That is fair enough; one would expect it to happen. It leads not only to traffic congestion but to other problems.
  At present, the Metropolitan police controls traffic wardens. Discussions are going on about how borough councils can co-operate with, or ultimately take over, that service. When traffic wardens were first introduced, senior policemen were against the use of lady traffic wardens. I mention that to show how, in retrospect, such attitudes can appear extraordinary. Mrs. Jane Phillips, the then chairman of the GLC's highways and traffic committee, and Mrs. Barbara Castle, who was then a Minister at the Department of Transport, had to bully Scotland Yard to accept lady traffic wardens.
  We must decide how much traffic wardens can co-operate with local officials. It is one of the matters that I hope our well-constituted committee in Newham will consider. On that constructive, wholly friendly and non-venomous note I close my remarks.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Eight hon. Members, most of whom have been present since the beginning of the debate, still wish to speak. I understand that the Under-Secretary and the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party hope to catch the eye of the Chair at about 2 pm. That leaves 90 minutes; the arithmetic is obvious.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I have not worked out the arithmetic, but I shall try to be brief.
  I take this opportunity to welcome the optimistic tone of the Commissioner's report and the hopeful trends outlined by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  There are signs that the police in London are coming to grips with London's problems, but clearly there are still problems. It is little consolation to a crime victim to discover that, although the statistics and trends suggest that there has been an improvement, there is no quick response or police activity for the injury that they have suffered.
  That raises the question of what constitutes good policing in London. Clearly there must be crime prevention and detection, but the public must also have confidence in and must co-operate with the police. It is to that aspect of good policing in London that I should like to address a few remarks.
  It is essential that the Metropolitan police should represent, and in many ways reflect, the communities of London. Clearly those communities should have confidence in and be able to identify with the police. Police recruitment must ensure that, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said of traffic wardens, there should be clear representation of women in the force doing proper police work. At the same time, ethnic minorities should be seen to be active as policemen and should identify with those they serve, of whatever racial origin or ethnic group. Only with such widespread appeal will the police of London effectively gain the confidence and co-operation of those who live in and serve the community.
  Much could be done for police recruitment if only the schools in London, especially inner London, recognised that the police force is a career prospect to be offered to

  1409
  children considering a career for when they leave school. It is a matter of regret that, over the years, ILEA has not given prominence to the police force as a likely career. In the past, it has positively dissuaded police from entering its schools—if not positively forbidden them. I am reassured that that is no longer the practice and that the police are able—I shall not say welcome—to enter all schools in inner London. On occasions, police officers have been able to enter only if they did not wear uniforms. ILEA's authorities have suggested that they would prefer the police not to be seen in schools in a positive police role.
  To be more constructive, I shall refer to the beneficial effect of neighbourhood watch schemes in making connections with and establishing good relations between the police and the community at large. When neighbourhood watch and crime prevention schemes were first introduced, their primary function was crime prevention. My limited experience of those schemes in my constituency leads me to believe that it is too early to evaluate the success of the crime prevention function, but it is evident that they have led to the establishment of a rapport between the local community and the police.
  When a neighbourhood watch scheme is set up, a home beat officer calls at one or two houses and seeks to advise the occupants on crime prevention. He is followed in turn by the crime prevention officer. Locks on doors are then changed, and burglar alarms appear on those properties. That has a knock-on effect. First one property owner does it and then another. The people in those communities are not nosey parkers, but such schemes lead to the community being aware of what is going on in the locality. That is beneficial and it should be fostered and encouraged.
  I attended a recent meeting of the co-ordinators of neighbourhood watch schemes in one part of my constituency. I had never before been to such a well-attended meeting that involved people who live in a very limited area. I had never before seen such a lively response from the people who live there or such a constructive rapport between the police and the local community. I welcome such developments, because they will lead to better policing and to a decrease in crime.
  Hon. Members on both sides referred earlier to the difficulties that had been experienced over the police consultative committees. My observations of the police consultative committee in my area lead me to believe that there is a conflict of objectives. When police consultative committees were first established, the intention was that they should follow what one might call the Scarman model and defuse tension between the police and the community. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, by encouraging the establishment of such committees, the Home Office felt that they had a major contribution to make to crime prevention. When Socialist authorities became involved in setting up these committees, they believed that, at the very least, they would act as a watchdog and that they would monitor police operations with a view to taking over political control of the Metropolitan police.
  Such conflicting views meant that it was difficult to establish police consultative committees. In Southwark there was an agonising period during which efforts were made to establish a working relationship. I am pleased to
  1410
  be able to say that recent evidence suggests that at least some consensus has been reached. Although there may be be different objectives, it is now thought to be beneficial for the various groups to work together. It is another optimistic sign.
  I am worried about the fact that there are some no-go areas in my borough. They are to be found on some of the more deprived and rundown estates. Milkmen have refused to deliver milk, postmen have refused to deliver mail and doctors have refused to make home calls. Even the police have felt intimidated about approaching those estates. It bodes ill for regeneration of the inner city if, within a mile or two of this House, there are areas about whose safety the staff of public services have misgivings.
  Ms. Abbott: Would the hon. Gentleman care to name the estates he has referred to and say how recently he heard those allegations about police and milkmen not going into them?
  Mr. Bowden: A month ago, postmen refused to deliver mail to the Dog Kennel hill estate because they were being assaulted and girocheques were being removed from their sacks. For the last few years, doctors have refused to carry out calls in, milkmen have refused to deliver to, and postmen have refused to enter, the North Peckham estate—except in twos or threes. I am prepared to give more instances if the hon. Lady wants them, but if she is satisfied with those, I shall continue.
  If the inner city is to be regenerated, we must ensure that these public services are provided, and that they are supported by the police. The hopeful signs in the Commissioner's report and my right hon. Friend's speech show that progress can be made.
  In the context of manpower and police morale, it is important that police on shift do not see members of their shift being withdrawn and so feel undersupported. In many cases this is the result of redeployment; members of a shift are withdrawn to be put back on the beat as home beat community police officers. That is done for the general benefit and improvement of life and policing in communities. Alongside public confidence in the police, the police must be confident that the public support them and recognise the good work they are doing. Bad police practices must be condemned and good ones congratulated. This debate gives us an opportunity to do just that.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity of this debate. I am happy to speak after my political neighbour in Southwark—the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden)—whose constituency is the only borough that spans the political divide in the Metropolitan police district.
  I, too, congratulate the new Commissioner on his appointment and wish him well. I have known him for a long time, ever since he served in Thames Valley and, in my previous incarnation as a lawyer, I did some work for him. I also pay tribute to the retired Commissioner for all that he did for Greater London. Londoners have good cause to place great confidence in both men. I share the general goals set out by the Commissioner: they are appropriate, although I might quibble about some details.
  I also pay tribute without hesitation to the police in my borough. Two police divisions are based there—the

  1411
  Southwark division in Borough high street, and the Rotherhithe and Tower Bridge division in Carter street. The latter covers part of my constituency and part of that of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). Both forges are extremely co-operative and helpful. There are occasional complaints, some of which are serious and need dealing with seriously, but in general I pay tribute to the police's work in a difficult part of London. I agree with the hon. Member for Dulwich that policing in places such as Southwark is often far from easy. Police cadets and young officers have told me that they feel afraid when going into certain estates, not only in the south and middle, but in the northern parts of Southwark, too.
  I have raised before with the Home Secretary, and I repeat now, the need to do everything possible to encourage police morale. One of the things that makes them unhappy is that, having pursued lawbreakers and made an arrest, they never ultimately discover what happens to them. Prosecution is now out of their hands and in the hands of the Crown prosecution service. The Home Secretary has been responsive to my concern that the police should be given more information and be able to feel rightly proud of what they successfully do on behalf of the community. I hope for better progress in this area. The CPS is still in its early stages and still makes mistakes, as the case of Robert McHale is proving at the moment. That is partly a Home Office and partly an Attorney-General matter.
  Another matter that causes me even more concern is the wastage of police officers. I raised it in my intervention, but it is also worth drawing attention to the report. Pages 48 and 49 state:
  "Wastage again was disappointingly high in 1987. A total of 1,621 officers left the force, 6 per cent. more than in 1986. The real strength of the Force rose by only 433 which was, nevertheless, an improvement on 1986…The number of officers who left with less than two years' service (probationers) rose from 122 to 141 which was disappointing…Transfers to other forces continued to be a major cause for concern with 302 officers (19 per cent. of all wastage) transferring compared with 249 in 1986 (16 per cent.)"
  The graph supplied with the report shows that the number of officers lost is almost the same as those recruited, especially at senior and middle rank level. When a community has become accustomed to its police officers and then they leave—a point already made several times—it undermines the belief in community policing, because the police officers that the community gets to know, and with whom it shares responsibility, suddenly move on. That is a serious defect in the system.
  Housing is certainly a problem. I am troubled that we still do not provide adequate housing opportunities. I accept that police officers cannot be forced to live in the area in which they work, but I am even more concerned when, for example, just behind the police station in Rotherhithe, flats owned by the Metropolitan police—they were formerly police flats—remain empty, which is entirely undesirable in a borough where there are thousands of homeless people. Perhaps, in the short term, the flats could be given to other people in need, although housing police in the community enhances their commitment to it.
  The Home Secretary has rightly said that the cost of policing London is high. Therefore, it is unfair when other Government Departments allege that the cost of other services in London are so high—for example, the Health Service, social services and education. One of the reasons
  1412
  for abolishing ILEA is that it costs so much but, in fact, it costs less per head than the Metropolitan police. We should remind people that, given such high costs, the results, although in some ways encouraging, are still not good.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) made a thoughtful speech, and I agreed with everything that he said—as, indeed, I did with other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman said that the clear-up rate is still poor, and in terms of cost benefit is not a matter for complacency. We must ensure that there is no let-up, so that the police clear up a far greater percentage of crime.
  Why should citizens of London, who pay a substantial amount towards its policing, have only half as much chance as the rest of the country of the offences committed against them being dealt with? The individual citizen's rights are the same in London as elsewhere. He should have the same chance of good policing. In that regard, the London police need to do better.
  I want briefly to reflect on the theme of the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The causes of crime are clearly complex, and no one can pretend that there is an easy analysis. However, I am persuaded that, if there is a disadvantaged and derelict community—one that looks vandalised before anyone does anything to make it worse—it does not enhance the chances of people feeling committed to it. For example, in my road, next to my house, there are five squatted properties. They have broken windows and are derelict outside. When people smash up other buildings on the road, it makes hardly any difference, because no one has a real commitment. I am the only person with a secure tenancy in my terrace. Bollards are broken and windows smashed, and there is litter, which all become just part of the community; the incentive to improve it is almost neglible.
  We need community investment in the inner city that brings about community responsibility. When people feel proud of their community, they will act as police officers. There will be more self-policing. People know who lives in an area and are concerned about that community.
  In a society such as inner London where there is high unemployment, poor schooling in secondary schools and much truancy, policing is more difficult. Almost half of all offences are committed by 10 to 20-year-olds, many of whom either should be at school or have no training or work available. Unless we give decent schooling, training and working opportunities, there will be no incentive to have a good community which is self-policing.
  Parents and families must play their part. Often, they do not play a sufficient part and take responsibilities, but leave them to others. This is not helped when there is such a sense of dereliction and despondency in one area, while elsewhere people are doing well. My borough is typical of the two nations. A massive number of my constituents live in appalling conditions while next door extraordinarily expensive housing is being built—costing £200,000,£300,000,£400,000, £500,000, £1 million and, as advertised just last week, £2·5 million. It is not surprising, when people believe that there are two nations, that they have no commitment and feel that they are outsiders while others are clearly insiders.
  The annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis refers to the work of the Metropolitan and

  1413
  City police company fraud branch. It is a reflection of the society in which we live that it has had so much more work. The report states:
  "1987 was unparalleled in terms of media interest in the work of the fraud branch…
  A total of 462 cases involving £1,545 million continued from 1986; in 1987, a further 590 cases were accepted for investigation with a total cash at risk figure of £3,295 million. During the year, 366 people were charged or summonsed.
  Multiple share applications and mortgage frauds formed a large part of the workload of the branch.
  The Government's privatisation programme led to an increase in the number of those who submitted multiple share applications using a variety of names and addresses. Neither the severity of the sentences imposed, nor the attendant publicity impacted on the desire to make large illegal profits…
  Mortgage frauds showed a considerable rise during the year."
  In a self-centred and greedy society, we are producing a cash-and-grab community. It is not surprising—whatever the rights or wrongs of it—when young and relatively inexperienced 14, 16 and 19-year-olds living on social security in bed-and-breakfast hotels or grotty council estates see in the windows of others expensive equipment that they have no chance of obtaining and so turn to crime, with thefts of videos and electronic equipment. They are encouraged by advertising and the idea that one can profit for oneself—the free enterprise society gone mad.
  I was saddened yesterday by the fact that the Prime Minister when asked about ticket touts at Wimbledon said that she had no responsibility for them. She does. Like the Home Secretary and all other Ministers, she has a responsibility for curbing the selfishness in our society that allows people who profit selfishly and illegally at the expense of others to go about unhindered. Those people are now encouraged by Conservative Members, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made clear she did the other day.
  We need an attack on the two nations to make one nation, so that the two communities become one and young people are given the opportunities to grow up as law-abiding and respecting citizens. The youth service in London is under threat. We do not know whether it will have security of funding. Without a decent youth service, adult education service and nursery education, the chances of people living in a well-regulated society will be small.
  I pointed out in an intervention that alcohol is a major problem. A substantial number of offences, both minor and major, are committed by people under the influence of drink and drugs.
  Proper education and regulation are needed to avoid the situations so often seen in our society, whether on the way to or from football matches, discotheques, clubs and pubs, or in and out of supermarkets. If we do not curb the acceptability of drinking in such large quantities, we shall not deal with the vandalism and criminality that so often results. We must ensure that alcoholism is as high and vivid on the agenda as drug taking. Together they are lethal, but far more people fall victim to drink than to drugs and commit offences as a result, and it is a far more prevalent evil, conspiring towards the vast number of offenders who appear in the courts and the many others who do not.
  I hope that this debate will show the police on the beat that they are respected and appreciated for what they do,
  1414
  but the authorities responsible for the police should be aware that we are still far from being a harmonious and well ordered society. The police must listen and respond more to the needs of the community and share with it the responsibility for policing. Only in that way will the quality of life of a capital city, which could be like Toronto but is not yet, become acceptable for the many citizens who, sadly, have to live in a city in which crime, vandalism and dereliction are the orders of the day.
  12.56 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I differ in just one respect from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I believe that he spoke of Conservative Members—in the plural—supporting touts. I believe that the singular would be more accurate.
  I begin by apologising for the fact that, like so many hon. Members, I had constituency business earlier in the day and I have a further constituency appointment later. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will forgive me if I miss his mellifluous words of wisdom, and that the two Douglases—major and minor—will forgive me for having missed their contributions. I shall read the Official Report with great interest over breakfast.
  I wish to make four brief points. First, I believe that neighbourhood watch schemes are among the most helpful and useful innovations and I was delighted at the support expressed by all hon. Members who mentioned them. If we can encourge those who give up their own time to help to keep crime off the streets and to report it, we shall be performing a very valuable duty. My one concern is that the effect is to move crime to areas without neighbourhood watch schemes. That must be a major reason for adding to the number of schemes in existence.
  Allied with that is the question of home beat officers. The last Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis began to reverse one of the most unfortunate developments in London—the fact that officers remained on home beat posts for too short a time. The job can be done properly only if they are there for three or more years, so that they get to know the people and the people get to know them. I welcome the new Commissioner and hope that he will continue that trend.
  The courts will also have to be less lenient when guilty verdicts are delivered. Most of us must have heard people asking why Parliament does not increase the penalties, but it is no use increasing them when the courts so often do not use the existing maximum. I make no further comment on that, save to say that one day Parliament will have to take notice of the overwhelming demand of our electors to bring back the death penalty.
  I wish to comment on two points made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I welcome his comments about neighbourhood watches and his assurance that he supports the police in the work that they do. I do not doubt that that is true of the right hon. Gentleman, but he must admit that his party in London has, in most cases, given a wholly opposite impression. I do not believe that London ought to have an elected police authority. We have a unique opportunity to question Ministers about the police in London, which is far better than leaving it to politically inspired local authority control.

  1415
  As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the consultative committees, which got off to a bad start, are beginning to work well. In Camden, the Labour party, after a public split, now supports the consultative committee, which is doing remarkably good work.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) commented on the freemasons. I am not one and have not been one, but in view of the charitable work that they do, I would be proud to be one, and I do not agree that freemasonry is incompatible with being a policeman.
  On page 24 of his report, the Commissioner talks about the special constabulary. I am worried, and have been for a long time, that the special constabulary is not doing the job it should be doing because of inadequate numbers. I should like to pay tribute to the recently retired Chief Commandant, Arthur Hammond, an old friend, who did very good work. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will insist that the new Chief Commandant rides a horse, which Arthur refused to do during his many years of service.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said, we must get more members of the community involved with the specials. There is a job of work to be done, and we must try to overcome the unease that has for a long time been felt by some full-time policemen.
  I hope that the Commissioner will pay more heed to the views of local police than to the traffic branch when it comes to discussing matters of traffic. It is highly frustrating for good chief superintendents, who have a good rapport with their local community, to have to tidy up the mess created by the traffic branch. Of course the traffic branch is only doing its job, but it often does it unthinkingly and unfeelingly.
  People in my area have immense problems with towings away and clampings where, frankly, it is unnecessary. The police have to do it because there are yellow lines. I hope that, as a result of the efforts of Councillor Spence, there will be a review of yellow lines and that the unnecessary ones will be removed. Such difficulties do more harm to police-community relations than almost anything else.
  The House needs an opportunity, from time to time, to discuss the Metropolitan police's good work. It is not surprising that there is far less division in the House about the police than there used to be. One of the reasons for that is the opportunity for discussion. We can now meet the police in a larger forum, rather than on a one-to-one basis with chief superintendents or superintendents.
  The consultative committees are doing a valuable job. I hope that the Home Office will find it possible to maintain and perhaps even increase the allocation to the Commissioner to enable him to support consultative committees and neighbourhood watch schemes. There is a danger that, as the number of neighbourhood watch schemes increases, the Commissioner might not be able, with existing manpower, to provide the number of policemen necessary to maintain active liaison with neighbourhood watchers. I warmly welcome the Commissioner's report.
  1.4 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: First, I should like to place on record my commitment—and that of all London Labour Members
  1416
  —to fighting crime and helping to make London a safe place for people to live in. I am a single woman and live on my own, so I understand the fears of women of all ages, whether single or married, about crime, sexual violence and being alone at home at night.
  It is absurd to argue, as some of the more disreputable Tory Members have argued, that the Labour party in London is pro-crime and pro-disorder. It is our people who suffer most from crime. All over the world, it is the poor who suffer most from crime, whether council tenants, single parents or pensioners, so the Labour party in London, which endeavours to represent working people and the poor, is worried about crime. It is our people who are hit worst and hit first by the effects of crime. Crime is a very big issue in my constituency of Hackney North, and Stoke Newington.
  I shall touch on Tory hypocrisy about law and order. Hypocrisy characterises the Tory party in the 1980s, and on the matter of law and order the hypocrisy is particularly gross and stinking. Since the Prime Minister has been in power, crime has increased by half. My hon. Friends have mentioned how, in general, the Conservative regime has contributed to the rising tide of lawlessness and disorder by promoting a climate of materialism and grasping rampant individualism. Spiralling poverty and homelessness, have also been the consequences of eight years of Tory misrule. There have also been cuts in social security. There is no doubt that all these create the climate for the rising tide of crime under the Government. In 1979, the Tory party said in its manifesto:
  "respect for the rule of law is the basis of a free and civilized life."
  That comes ill from the Tories. If they want to give lectures about respect for the rule of law, they should give them to Ernest Saunders and other leading Conservative voters who were involved in the £1 million Guinness scandal, and other City frauds.
  I shall touch on the Home Secretary's closing remarks in his introduction to the debate. He talked of the importance of the highest professional standards in the Metropolitan police. I feel that I can speak for every London Labour Member in saying that we agree with him wholeheartedly about that. When we discuss those matters, when we meet our local police commanders and when we speak to our local communities, tenants' associations, community groups and young people, that issue is always top of the agenda. That is why we have raised the issue of freemasonry.
  There was a lot of spluttering and noise from Tory Members when we brought up the subject of freemasons. Hon. Members talked about proof. Books and television and newspaper investigations have given rise to considerable concern. The point, above all, about the Metropolitan police and freemasonry is that, like Caesar's wife, the police force should be above reproach. There is no doubt that the continuing drip of allegations, cases and investigations about freemasonry in the Metropolitan police does not leave the Metropolitan police above reproach.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) say that membership of the freemasons was not incompatible with carrying out police duties. That is not quite the view of the Metropolitan police. Even it acknowledges that membership of the freemasons can cause a problem—if only a problem in public perception. That is why the

  1417
  Metropolitan police itself in 1985 officially advised officers that they should consider the advisability of membership of the freemasons.
  If those at the highest levels of the Metropolitan police are aware of the problems caused to the public's perception of the police by the fact—it is a fact—that one in five police officers in London are freemasons, I am amazed that Conservative members are so smug about it. Not only are one in five police officers in London freemasons, but they include members of the fraud squad and the complaints investigation branch.
  With the best will in the world, there can be no doubt that that causes problems when it comes to public confidence. All kinds of possibilities can arise from such high levels of police involvement in freemasonry at senior levels, including the questions of promotion within the force, and corrupt collusion with freemason contractors. I need only touch on the case of chief inspector Brian Woollard who, unfortunately, has recently had to resign from the Metropolitan police. He alleged throughout his period of suspension and in many interviews that it was because he, as a loyal dedicated policeman, chose to investigate what he suspected might be corrupt connections between contractors who were freemasons and the policemen who were awarding the contracts also being freemasons, that he was suspended and forced out of the police.
  Freemasonry in the Metropolitan police also causes problems with internal investigations. How can a senior policeman who is a freemason possibly be seen as adequately investigating a complaint against another policeman who is also a freemason, and even if he is doing so, how is that situation perceived? As I said earlier, it is possible that the public might think, because senior policemen are members of freemasonry lodges along with known criminals, the criminals might escape the long arm of the law. Those are only possibilities, but the problem of the Metropolitan police connection with freemasonry is one of perception. As I said earlier, the Metropolitan police should be seen to be above reproach.
  I want to continue my theme of the highest professional standards. One area in which the Metropolitan police may have been slipping from the highest professional standards is in collusion with the media. I refer to a case in Hackney. When a raid was made on a club in Clapton, both national and local media were tipped off about it in advance. A photographer from the Evening Standard went along and photographs of police in riot gear were splashed in the papers. All the stories in the papers referred to the Yardies, the Jamaican mafia which is supposed to control every crime in the London area, from a bank robbery in Brixton to a mugging on Croydon high street. About 70 people were handcuffed during the raid but only five charges were brought. Several Jamaican politicians have been in and out of London in the past few months and I have discussed the issue with them, with Jamaicans in this country, and with my constituents. People are alarmed that inflated media propaganda about the Yardies, the non-existent Jamaican mafia, reflects badly on the Jamaican community, both here and abroad the vast majority of whom are law-abiding people. If the police have been colluding in
  1418
  that media propaganda and media hype, that is wholly irresponsible and will undoubtedly damage police-community relations.
  I should like to touch on another case of media collusion and to talk about a woman who is a personal friend and whom I have known for many years. She is called Dolly Kiffin and is a community leader on the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham. I have known her since before either of us moved in the public domain and know her to be a principled, hardworking woman who is committed to her community. She has done an enormous amount of work to turn Broadwater Farm around from a sink estate to an estate which people from all over the world now visit to see the community initiatives and the things that have been done to bring young black and white people together and to see the way in which the estate has been improved and employment generated.
  Dolly Kiffin was subjected to a slanderous campaign in the newspapers, especially in the Mail group of newspapers. It was implied that she was involved in instigating the Broadwater Farm riots; that she even ordered the killing of PC Blakelock, and that she was financially corrupt. I am pleased to say that in the last few weeks Dolly Kiffin has received damages and compensation running into six figures from the Mail group of newspapers, which has had to admit that all those allegations were downright lies. The problem is that—it reflects on the Metropolitan police—it is alleged that the stories that appeared in the Mail newspapers have now been admitted to be slanderous. They appeared in the Mail newspapers with police collusion. Such collusion with the media does nothing to enhance public esteem of professional standards in the Metropolitan police.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Abbott: I shall not give way. I shall develop my arguments.
  I wish to talk further about professional standards and about the Broadwater Farm trials. As Conservative Members will remember that, at the end of investigations, six people were charged, three of whom were juveniles. Of the three juveniles, two were acquitted. I remind Conservative Members of what the judge said in acquitting them. The judge found that the treatment of one juvenile, who was 13 years of age, was oppressive on three points. He spent 48 hours in a police cell, isolated from his family, and cut off from the outside world. When he was interviewed, he was clothed only in underpants. After a change in interviewing tactics, the child broke down emotionally and cried. The judge found his treatment to be oppressive, and directed his acquittal.
  There was another child, aged 15, with a mental age of a child of seven. Again, the judge found that the police treatment of that little boy was oppressive. Such cases call into question the professional standards of at least a minority of Metropolitan policemen.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend will recall that the policing of the Broadwater farm estate and the subsequent trial was the subject of a report from such an esteemed body as Amnesty International. That report has not been widely reported in the national media or taken up by the Government and commented on. Does my hon. Friend agree that Amnesty International has made a serious report and that it should be given due weight?
  Ms. Abbott: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of the Amnesty International report. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) sniggering. Of course, torture and the oppressive treatment of young people is of no concern to him. I put it to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that we shall not have effective policing in this city until——
  Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Abbott: I shall not give way. I wish to complete my point.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that effective policing and law and order in this city depend on wide public consent to the activities of the police. The cases that I mentioned call into question the professionalism of at least some Metropolitan police officers.
  Mr. Dicks: Rubbish.
  Ms. Abbott: It will do the hon. Gentleman no good to say, "Rubbish." I am merely quoting a judge's remarks. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the judge's remarks are rubbish, he should take up the matter with the judge concerned.
  I now refer to the police in my constituency of Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. Unfortunately, there have been several disturbing cases of police behaviour in Stoke Newington, and in Stoke Newington police station in particular. I remind hon. Members of the case of Colin Roach, who died from a shotgun blast while in custody in Stoke Newington police station. In the eyes of the community, how Colin Roach was shot and died has never been satisfactorily explained. There was the case of Derek Pascal], a 25-year-old, who was beaten up and burnt with cigarettes on his stomach by two policemen. He was eventually awarded £3,500 damages against the polce. There was the case of Danny Rama and Brian Donovan, two London printers, who won their appeals against conviction during the Wapping dispute. They alleged that they were badly beaten in a police van. The police said that they could not explain their multiple injuries.
  There was the recent case of Trevor Monerville who was arrested by police at Stoke Newington police station. He turned up in Maudsley hospital suffering from a swollen brain and his body was covered in bruises. To this day he suffers from paralysis and his family have had no answers to questions as to how he received the brain damage and why his body was covered in bruises. Two pensioners were assaulted by Stoke Newington police and eventually gained damages in the High court.
  I am not saying that such instances are the norm. If Conservative Members take seriously issues of law and order in London, and if they are concerned about the reputation of the Metropolitan police force, it is not enough for them to snigger and sneer and to shrug off instances of brutality which have resulted in court rulings in the complainants' favour. If hon. Members' wives, mothers, sons, had been assaulted and had to go to the court to get damages, they would take it seriously. On behalf of the citizens of London we are obliged to take seriously such cases, which reflect poorly on the reputation of the Metropolitan police force. When I and my hon. Friends raise such cases, we are accused of being anti-police. That is absurd. It is pro-police to expect the highest possible standards from the police.
  1420
  While on the subject of absurdity, it is only fair to mention a motion on the Order Paper signed by a large number of Conservative Members, entitled, "Hackney police operation against muggers". I note that none of the Conservative Members who have signed the motion have anything to do with Hackney. Some of them have never been to Hackney. The two Labour Members of Parliament for Hackney, the Hackney council and the Hackney police committee are united in wishing to fight crime and mugging in Hackney.
  I wish to place on record my respect for the work of the police committee support unit, which is denigrated in the motion. It has done a great deal of work on crime prevention on estates. The police committee support unit has been quoted as saying that the police operation was inappropriate. It has been quoted out of context. One aspect of the police operation against muggers, which in some respects was successful, was the suggestion that there should be mounted police in Ridley road market as a deterrent against muggers. The police committee support unit merely pointed out that, given the packed nature of Ridley road market, mounted police were not the most effective way of chasing muggers. The police committee support unit has been quoted out of context in the motion. The motion is foolish. It has been signed by people who have no real interest in the problems of crime in Hackney.
  In conclusion, I hope that all hon. Members are united in wanting effective policing in London. Effective policing needs broad popular consent. Some boroughs and people were unwilling to become involved with the police consultative committee. They were not against police consultation in principle, but they did not believe that the police genuinely wished to consult. They considered that the committees were a sham and that there would be no genuine consultation and that there would be no practical result. Where it can be proved that those committees can result in genuine consultation people have been willing to join them, but there is no doubt that the unwillingness of people to join the consultative committees was because the consultative committees did not conform with the blueprint laid down in Lord Scarman's report and did not have the powers that were suggested. People genuinely doubted the commitment of the police to genuine consultation.
  If we are to have effective policing with broad popular consent, we must be open-minded and we must face some of the problems over the puplic perception of the Metropolitan police. We must face the problem that the high level of police involvement in freemasonry poses to confidence in the police. We must face the problem of recurrent instances of abuse of police power. We must face the problem of the taint of racism attached to some activities of some members of the Metropolitan police force, whether in individual cases or in general attitude. Anyone who is genuinely for law and order and who wishes to protect the life, property and well-being of the people of London must wish to see the Metropolitan police force stand in the highest public esteem. That is particularly so of those of us who genuinely believe in these issues, and are not merely trying to gain cheap political advantage, and who live in inner London among the communities that we represent. The Metropolitan police force will stand in the highest public esteem if the force itself and its political masters are seen to pursue with rigour and seriousness some of the abuses and problems which I have touched on.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks: I have never heard such a load of codswallop in all my life as the words of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). She claims to represent the working class, with her middle class accent, yuppie media background and visits to Champneys. She says that she lives in her constituency, but does not say that she is living in a house that most of her constituents could not afford.
  Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady under any circumstances. We had not one word of regret from her about the death of P. C. Blakelock, which showed her one-sided views. P. C. Blakelock was butchered by a load of West Indians bringing their tribal behaviour on to the streets of Broadwater farm. He was butchered and cut into dozens of pieces, but there was not a word of apology from the hon. Lady for that.
  Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: No I will not give way. I want to get on to the main issue of policing of London
  Ms. Abbott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What does the hon. Member mean by "tribal behaviour"?
  Mr. Dicks: I will treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves. The hon. Lady knows very well what I was talking about.
  Policing in London is a major problem, as has already been said. Crime is at a high level—far too high to be acceptable. The increase in establishment referred to by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not having an impact on policing, and the move to civilianise some of the posts is not leading to a large number of bobbies being back on the beat. In 1985, the previous Commissioner called for 3,000 more police officers to be appointed. Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed that there should be 1,200 more police officers, with the increase being spread over four years. That is hardly an effective response to those demands.
  Public order is a huge drain on both public resources and manpower. Like me, many people in London are annoyed that the issues for which the police are used are often not related to Britain. There are demonstrations by Arab against Arab about problems in their own countries and police manpower is used to ensure that the demonstrators keep moving through the streets of central London. Police officers on the beat want to know why such demonstrations should be allowed on the streets of London at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense. A recent demonstration involving middle east factions cost the taxpayers and ratepayers £6,000, with people walking through London causing chaos to the traffic and chanting words that most people in England could not understand. There have been demonstrations on Indian and Eastern European matters, all of which cost time and money and take policemen away from the job that they should be doing—preventing and finding the answers to crime.
  A continuous police presence has to be maintained outside the South African embassy because the anti-apartheid groups want to go on about rights. These people have good solicitors and are able to show that they
  1422
  are blocking only part of the pavement. There is a constant noise and the constant potential for violence, so police have to stay on duty. If these demonstrations were taking place outside the Foreign Office or the Home Office, regulations would be introduced within 24 hours to get them stopped and to get these people removed. Instead, we have to waste police resources to allow these anti-apartheid groups to cause bedlam around the clock.
  The Notting hill carnival, which takes place once a year, locks up the best part of Kensington for two days to allow a handful of West Indians to bring their culture and way of life on to the streets of London. Last year, policing of the Notting hill carnival cost about £1 million, of which £56,000 was spent on feeding the police. There is no reason why the streets of Notting hill should be blocked off to enable people to behave in the way that they do and to encourage petty crime. Ordinary decent people who have lived there many years longer than the immigrants want to go about their normal business. Why should not they be allowed to drive through Notting hill just because there will be a West Indian culture concert and rabble-making throughout the weekend? I have written to the Secretary of State about this, but he replied that it is a good social occasion and that it should not be stopped. I find that amazing, as do most ordinary people and, of course, the police.
  Sometimes junior police officers have been instructed to turn a blind eye to drunkenness, petty thieving and minor drug-taking. If they carried out the letter of the law it could lead to a massive uprising of the local inhabitants. It seems that there is one rule for my constituents but a different one and different interpretation of the law for the constituents of Kensington and the West Indians of that area. I want people from that area to be treated in exactly the same way as my constituents who are picked up for drunkenness, smoking pot or petty thieving. It is most unfair that there is this one-sided approach to the maintenance of law and order in some parts of London.
  Football and other sporting activities are a tremendous drain on police resources. The best time to be a criminal, especially in London, is Saturday afternoon. If the police are not at demonstrations they are at football matches. Most weekends police stations are undermanned because police must cope with football matches or demonstrations. Mention has been made of London's responsibilities for processions. It is perhaps necessary for various processions to take place, and various heads of state come here and must be protected. But the other activities that I have mentioned are completely unnecessary.
  I have a letter from the Under-Secretary dated March 1987 saying that there were not any no-go areas in this country. That is untrue. Does he have the courage to go with me—I am not sure whether I have—to go along All Saints road, the home of the Mangrove club? He will know that policemen are not allowed to make arrests at that club unless they get permission from senior officers. Those senior officers must talk to community leaders to ascertain whether it is all right to send the police in to make arrests. If they do not talk to community leaders there must be a large police presence to ensure that the officer making the arrest can get out safely. That is only one no-go area of which I am aware, but there are many others, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) mentioned some. Those are areas where not only milkmen or postmen cannot go but where there must be special policing. That is positive discrimination. Normal police duties cannot be

  1423
  undertaken because the ethnic community might not like it and cause trouble. Why is there special policing for primarily the West Indian communities in the capital city but different policing in the rest of London? I cannot understand it hut, more important, nor can people outside. Apart from All Saints road, there are no-go areas in Brixton and Broadwater farm.
  Mr. John Fraser: That is not true. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, but some hon. Members have been sitting here since 9.30 am. I could go on and on about no-go areas. [Interruption.] I shall take no notice of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who has just popped into the Chamber to sit on his backside and grin. I believe the police officers who are at the sharp end, day after day, all over London. I take their word for what is happening.
  It has been suggested that civilianisation will have a massive impact, that 1,500 posts could be civilianised so that bobbies could return to the beat. That figure is to be found in the 1985–86 Session report of the Public Accounts Committee. With 150 posts being civilianised every year, it will take 10 years to get policemen back on the beat. Some serving police officers in London also say that they have yet to see a bobby being taken off a job that has been civilianised. They have great doubts about the speed at which civilianisation is taking place.
  The Crown Prosecution Service is one of the best services that many policemen know for the successful villian. The chance of cases being withdrawn or dismissed is higher now, because of having to resort to the Crown Prosecution Service, than ever before. Communication between the police and the CPS is very poor. To process cases before they are passed from a police station to the CPS leads to an enormous drain on the resources of local police stations. Why on earth can we not return to the old system under which a policeman arrested a suspect and took the case right through to court? Why should the CPS act as a buffer between the police and the courts? We are getting nowhere very slowly.
  The equipment used by the Metropolitan police is deteriorating. According to some police officers, the cuts have led to a reduction in the number of vehicles. They say that maintenance standards are not what they were and that there is now a directive to buy British. I am sorry to have to say that the British car is still not the best car in and around town. The police should be allowed to reconsider the directive to buy British if British cars do not serve the general needs of the Metropolitan police. I am also told that the police experience problems with their radios. They are often defective, and that leads to inefficiency. Furthermore, it can lead to the police being put in danger.
  Policemen are not gaolers and they should never be gaolers. Last year, 1 million man hours were lost in London, the equivalent of 700 officers on the beat, because they had to look after prisoners who were on remand in police cells. It is wrong that police manpower should be taken off the streets of our cities so that policemen can act as gaolers in their own police stations. There is something wrong somewhere.
  Let me put the other side of the coin. Since 1979, two new prisons have been built, at Frankland and Wayland,
  1424
  and £1 million has been spent on providing sports facilities for the prisoners. They have floodlit facilities and up-to-date sports halls. Everything is provided for them. It seems strange that we have allocated £1 million for sports facilities in those prisons when people on remand have to be placed in police station cells. A priority of that kind leads me to believe that there is something wrong with the system.
  There is disillusionment among police officers in the Metropolitan police. They are leaving every week for better jobs in county forces, or they are just resigning. The official side on the negotiating board suggests that rent allowances and the London allowance should be reduced. What a way to encourage police officers to stay in London. Police officers leave London because there is cheaper housing elsewhere and better schools and more agreeable living conditions outside London. Most important of all, as one young policeman said to me, there is less abuse by Labour party politicians—and some Conservative ones—if they move to the counties. The police hear nothing but criticism from the Labour party, from its leaders and from some of the militant Left-wing members of the Labour party, about their role in London.
  Many of us have seen disgusting literature from organisations funded by the now defunct Greater London council, which did nothing but run down the Metropolitan police. The police look for understanding of the problems of their work and for some respect for what they do
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman has been here for only two minutes; he can sit down again.
  The Metropolitan police are doing a marvellous job in trying conditions. They are continually under attack by liberal do-gooders, some of whom are in the Home Office, where hands are wrung and brows creased, but, in some cases, no action is taken. The Home Office must support the police, for that is what the police want. They sometimes worry about whether that support exists. I believe that it does, but we need further evidence of it from the Home Secretary and the Home Office.
  The police should not be expected to be social workers or community relations officers. Their job is to maintain law and order. That does not necessarily mean that they should have to put their arms round the shoulders of potential villains or worry about the community relations effect of law and order decisions. The sooner we realise that the police are there to do their job—not to worry about the impact that that might have on West Indians, Asians, Englishmen, Irishmen or Scotsmen—the better. Drastic action to improve manpower and conditions is called for. Until it is taken, policing London will remain a problem.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Three hon. Members are still hoping to speak before the winding-up speeches at about 2 o'clock. I hope that they will divide the time between them.
  1.42 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Racism is a serious source of friction which hinders the important work the police must do to protect communities of all races, colours and beliefs—including the black community. That friction is

  1425
  not helped by the sort of speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He fosters that sort of racism, and I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If crime is to be tackled, the black community must work with the police, and vice versa.
  I recently caught a television programme, one of the series called "C.A.T.S. Eyes", in which Jill Gascoigne goes about with a couple of other girls and catches criminals and spies. She reports to a black boss, who is presumably head of the security services in Scotland Yard. Although it was difficult to table the question, I recently asked the Prime Minister how many black people there are in management positions in the security services in Scotland Yard. I asked whether
  "the security services are an equal opportunity employer"
  Today, I received the answer:
  "The legislation governing equal opportunities recognises the need for exceptions in relation to members of the armed forces and the safeguarding of national security."
  That almost certainly means that there are no black citizens in management positions in Scotland Yard or similar services. The implication of the Prime Minister's answer is that they are not to be trusted. So this racism extends to the Government, who do not provide equal opportunities in this respect.
  Racism goes much further. For example, on the "South Bank Show", Lenny Henry went to New York and made a speech in which he said:
  "We have black people in London, too. They are generally known as 'the accused'."
  I am afraid that there is more than a grain of truth in that. A disproportionate number of our black citizens are in gaol or mental hospitals. We complain about Eastern bloc mental hospitals, but a disproportionate number of our black citizens have been put in them by the predominantly white police and judiciary. that has to be sorted out if we are to deal with the problems of racism that have been touched on by the last couple of speakers.
  Rising crime in London is generally non-racial; it affects all Londoners. there has been a substantial rise in virtually every major category of notifiable offence since 1979. It shows the Tory manifesto pledge to be a myth. It states:
  "Yet respect for the rule of law is the basis of a free and civilised life. We will restore it."
  That pledge was another trick on the electorate.
  Violence against the person is up 49 per cent. since 1979; sexual offences are up 16 per cent.—that is a rapidly growing category—burglary is up 65 per cent., robbery is up 161 per cent., theft and handling of stolen goods are up 45 per cent., and fraud and forgery are up 13 per cent.—although that figure does not include the city slickers in the City of London who are getting way with millions. They are not caught because the police are not properly equipped. Criminal damage is up 84 per cent. and other offences are up 119 per cent. There is now 53 per cent. more crime than there was in 1979—more than half as much again. While the crime rate has accelerated, the clear-up rate for the entire country has gone down—from 40 per cent. in 1979 to 33 per cent. The clear-up rate in London is even less. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, it is down to about 16 per cent. That is an abysmal record for the Government.
  1426
  It is all part of the tout philosophy enunciated by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) earlier this week. She said how wonderful the touts were—all part of the free market economy, which we must respect in everything. What it really means is that someone can make a quick, large buck without earning it. Of course, other people adopt the free market philosophy, for example the plying of the drugs trade and the increase in prostitution, including child prostitution. There has been a large increase in Thatcher's Britain; it is part of the free market economy. The arguments that apply to the touts also apply to those sorts of free markets.
  Since 1979 there has been inequality combined with greed. There has been a massive increase in desperation arising from hardship. There are people on the make who, perhaps, have too much money in their pockets, yet they literally kick everybody out of their way so that they can make more. They have learnt a lesson from the Government—if they are powerful enough they can make the laws and get away with committing crimes. That philosophy, which the Government have created, has resulted in a large increase in crime, especially violent crime. That is reflected not only by racial attacks but by crimes against women, which have also increased substantially, and against children. As the House knows, I am a campaigner for animal rights. The incidence of violence against animals has increased; they are being treated appallingly—dog fights are an example. That is all part of the syndrome of life being treated as cheap and worthless which, again, stems from the Government's philosophy.
  I know that Sir Peter Imbert has a difficult job, but I do not think that that was helped by his comment quoted in The Guardian this week, which said that Sir Peter was trying to appease some Tory hardliners. That is not a sensible way for a Commissioner to go about the task. Sir Peter is reported as saying:
  "I have heard it said that the way to empty prisons is to threaten to fill them up."
  That is an empty phrase, which would result in magistrates and judges sending more people to prison, causing overcrowding. Sending more people to prison will achieve exactly the opposite effect to what Sir Peter wishes. That is an empty phrase but it will not mean empty prisons.
  The problem will become worse because prisons are a breeding ground for crime. We need to empty our prisons as much as possible and leave them for the violent offenders—the rapists, murderers and the like who must be in prison. We should not throw everyone else in there. We need another version of community care to deal with prisoners so that when they are released they have jobs, homes and a proper place in society rather than becoming isolated and desperate, and thus likely to reoffend. Sir Peter's suggestion is not helpful as a way to alleviate the problems in prisons or the problems of crime.
  Police numbers should be evident, as this is an important part of police accountability. One problem of which London Labour Members complained when they met the police about events at Wapping was that the police in riot gear were not wearing numbers. Civil liberties are important and police numbers must be on show at all times.
  The Government have a blind spot about the role of local authorities in tackling crime. When the Prime Minister had her crime prevention review, she did not invite anyone from the local authorities. In my area,

  1427
  people are involved in this work on the Cathall estate. I paid tribute to the police when I consulted them about crime prevention on that estate. They were helpful and came up with useful solutions, but solutions require local council finance. The Government are cutting local authority expenditure and cutting grants to organisations involved in victim support schemes.
  It has been said that capitalism presents us all with a wonderful opportunity, if only we take it with both hands. That phrase came not from Ministers or professors of capitalism but from Al Capone. It shows that when we have the Prime Minister's brand of free market capitalism we get the rise in crime associated with it.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: At least two Opposition Members have sought to undermine confidence in the police. Conservative Members prefer to support our police, especially in London, in their dedicated and courageous job. We salute their work and achievements as portrayed in the Commissioner's report. We salute the 4 per cent. reduction in crime and the 13 per cent. increase in the time spent on the beat. We salute the 100,000 more neighbourhood watch schemes, which have taken the number of schemes over the 1 million mark.
  There are problems. One is street robbery. Arrests have increased by 45 per cent. and the clear-up rate by 25 per cent. Nevertheless, robberies are up by 13 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to some achievements in my area of Battersea. I should like to highlight that, because the Battersea street robbery figures show a decrease of 19 per cent. Arrests have doubled and clear-ups have risen by 117 per cent. That shows what can be done.
  That has been achieved by deploying street crime squads. That means more men. It has been achieved by targeting known streets and criminals. That, too, means more men. It has been achieved by bringing in the territorial support group. That also means access to more manpower. Because fewer men have had to be sent to pickets and demonstrations—there has been a 65 per cent. decrease since last year in that respect—more are available to deal with street crime. It has also been achieved by shifting resources and concentrating on this rather than on other aspects of crime. That is good news, but it shows that good news comes only when we have the manpower and resources to achieve it. There is good news, too, on motor crime, vandalism and sex offences, but figures for house burglaries have risen, which I suspect is due to the transfer of manpower to concentrate on street crime.
  The lesson is clear. If we have the men, we can win the war against crime. More men means less crime, more arrests and more clear-ups. As has already been pointed out, having so many police officers guarding prisoners in police cells, on remand or already sentenced, means the loss of 950,000 man-hours per year which should have been spent on the beat. The increasing complexity of fraud and the number of officers taken from the CID to concentrate on that type of crime has an effect right down the line, leaving fewer men available to solve crimes on the streets.
  We must declare war on crime and there must be no hiding place for criminals. It is fine to have the neighbourhood watch, the shop watch, the pub watch, the cab watch and all the other exciting developments about
  1428
  which we have heard today. It is fine to have better lights, locks and alarms and greater vigilance by the public, by car owners, by home owners, by shopkeepers, by neighbours and by cameras. But we still need the manpower, both in the Metropolitan police and in the transport police.
  Not long ago I went by Metropolitan line tube to Wembley with my son to see the final between Luton and Arsenal. We were appalled at the behaviour of drunken louts urinating in the carriages, setting fire to paper and insulting and abusing passengers, many of whom were young children travelling with their families. All that the police could do was to force more people into the carriages at Baker street and then let the train go on to Wembley Park. When the train arrived, there was not one police officer there to arrest the offenders and stop them going to the match. The police should be stopping such louts going to matches, and the transport police should be stopping them going on tube trains, but sufficient manpower is not available to make it possible to travel safely in London. We know of the problem on the Northern line and the black hole of crime which is such a danger to passengers, assuming that it is possible to get a train and thus to become a passenger.
  The crime rate has fallen by 4 per cent., but there are still 737,000 offences, of which 120,000 are cleared up, so in more than 600,000 cases the criminals get away with it. For burglaries, the figure is 97,000 with only 7,000 clear-ups, so in 90,000 cases the criminals get away with it. We need to recruit more police and to pay them properly. If housing is a problem, we should consider some kind of shared purchase scheme to assist recruitment.
  There is much to be said about traffic policing and many other areas which require additional manpower, but above all we need the police to stop crime. It is a simple question of what is required and the simple answer is more police. Sometimes the simple answer to a simple question is' the right one. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to meet that answer.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am appalled that the House cannot organise its business better. It is insulting to my constituents and to my local police, on whose behalf I wish to speak, that, having put my name in a week ago, I have had to sit here for four and a half hours, through 75 minutes of Front Bench speeches, one speech lasting 30 minutes and three of more than 20 minutes, only to be told that I have only three or four minutes in which to make my speech.
  This is the first time since becoming a Member of Parliament that I have had to focus my mind on the Metropolitan police. I am proud to say that my previous incarnation in local government was in a provincial police area.
  There are three issues on which I had hoped to speak, but I cannot now go into any detail on two of them. I thought about the basics of policing, and the conclusion that I reached was that the accountability argument, which the Labour party deploys, is bogus, irrelevant and, on some occasions, when it is argued in respect of London, downright dangerous.
  The second subject on which I focused my mind was the significance of London having different policing relations. My conclusion, on which I cannot elaborate, is that it is quite right that the capital should be policed separately

  1429
  and differently but that it is vital that standards throughout the Metropolitan police area should be the same. That thought would have led me, if I had had time, to develop an argument about whether the current Metropolitan police boundaries are correct.
  I shall concentrate on what local experience in my constituency has taught me in the year that I have been Spelthorne's Member of Parliament. My conclusions are that I am lucky to be where I am and that, in that part of the Metropolitan police area, there are some tremendous policing successes to report. I suggest that the House takes some of that experience on board. The rest of the country could learn from what is going on there.
  Community co-operation and a multi-agency approach to policing are the keys to beating the rising tide of crime. The important thing now is to focus on the effective use of existing resources, although we should consider providing new resources. In my little bit of the Metropolitan police area, the local community, particularly local community leaders, has been positive, enthusiastic and progressive about combating crime, and successful. The local police have provided me with a briefing note which says:
  "The community of Staines through its local consultative committee has itself accepted its responsibility for crime prevention. The results could not be achieved by police acting in isolation but serve to demonstrate what can be achieved when police have the full confidence and support of a community and council all working together towards a common goal."
  I have time to highlight only a few of the things that are going on. The formal framework is fully in place and operational. There is a consultative committee which has flourished and found a real job to do. It has produced a crime prevention panel, which is claimed to be the best in the Metropolitan police area. It has produced a junior crime prevention panel which, I am told, is the first in the Metropolitan police area. There is also a drug and alcohol abuse panel. One of its initiatives, taken with the help of a national brewery, is the establishment of the Metropolitan police area's first alcohol-free pub.
  There have been several notable initiatives. The police have organised business watch successfully. They have set up the first non-retail business watch scheme in the United Kingdom on the Poyle trading estate near Heathrow airport, and emphasised road safety campaigns. Spelthorne borough council has financed security packages for the elderly. It provides locks and fits them free. The council has also combated juvenile crime. Last summer, it set up a "summer safe" campaign which attracted 400 children to take part in activities ranging from water skiing to snooker, with which police staff helped.
  All that has produced dramatic results, and this is the lesson to be learnt. During the "summer safe" campaign, vandalism fell by 34 per cent. and cycle theft by 26 per cent. W. H. Smith reported a 50 per cent. reduction in shop lifting during that period. The security package for the elderly has resulted in burglaries of the elderly dropping by 40 per cent. and the road safety campaign has reduced death on the roads by 60 per cent.
  The size of police territory is critical. May I therefore press the Minister to tell me whether he is now prepared to urge the Commissioner to accept the report that divided the current Twickenham division into two separate divisions so that Spelthorne borough has its own police
  1430
  station. Secondly, will he undertake that when the Staines police station is rebuilt, it will be situated in the middle of the community and that he will not give way to the temptation to build it outside? Policing by consent—high profile policing, the full and enthusiastic support of the borough council, which puts a large amount of money into policing in its community—is the only way to heat crime. What has happened in Spelthorne is magnificent, and the rest of London and the rest of the country can learn from it.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) but I remember how, in an earlier debate on the Commissioner's reports, I have been squeezed out entirely. He has been luckier than I have been in the past, although I have been more fortunate this afternoon.
  It has been an interesting debate, in which plenty of crimes have been committed by Conservative Members. We started with a bad case of political fraud and deception perpetrated by the Home Secretary, who described the activities of the GLC so as to give a completely misleading impression of the GLC's attitude to the police. I am a forgiving person. I still proudly wear a pair of GLC cuff links, and I have a spare pair at home. If the Home Secretary promises to wear them at a Cabinet meeting and flaunt them in front of the Prime Minister, I shall give him the spare set.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): What about the silver?
  Mr. Banks: I am keeping that.
  We have had an incitement to violence from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who gave us his customary blend of racism, vulgar abuse and dementia. We have had incitements to boredom from many hon. Members and I suspect that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will be committing his usual crime of being inebriated by his own eloquence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is looking at me somewhat askance. Presumably, he is wondering whether I shall be arrested for dangerous political driving at the Dispatch Box. I shall do my best not to let him down.
  The Opposition associate themselves with the congratulations to Peter Imbert, both on his appointment and on his knighthood. The London group of Labour Members has regular meetings with the Commissioner. At times we find them very illuminating and at times very annoying but they are always useful and we intend to continue those meetings and our meetings with the Home Secretary.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and others that the annual debate on the Commissioner's report is no replacement for a democratically elected and publicly accountable police authority in London. If such a system can operate outside London, why cannot we have it here in London? Why cannot we have a police committee? The City of London has its own police authority with a committee structure, and what is good enough for the City of London and good enough outside London should be good enough for Greater London.

  1431
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook laid it firmly on the line that it remains the Labour party's position to establish a directly elected police authority for London when we are next in Government. That authority will have nothing to do with control of the day-to-day operations of the police but it will determine the overall operational policies and practices.
  The biggest difference between the speeches of the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark brook was the willingness of my right hon. Friend to examine causes as well as the effects of crime in London. That marks the great difference between the two parties. As I said in an intervention, even the Government are beginning to realise that the root causes of crime must be addressed. However, with this Government, and the policies that they are pursuing at the moment, crime will never be eliminated nor will any serious indentations be made on the levels of crime in our society. I accept that the Prime Minister cannot be personally blamed for all the crimes that are perpetrated in London, although she might be an incitement to riot should she walk the streets of London. However, she must take some indirect responsibility. She summed it all up when she said:
  "There is no such thing as society. There is only a collection of individuals and families."
  The Government's whole philosophy and all their policies are based on selfishness, greed, a sneering attitude to the public services and the caring professions, and an ideological hatred of publicly owned assets. We believe that the Government have done great damage to the concept of community. It is little wonder that our society is increasingly violent and divided. The decline in moral standards in this country is a reflection of the Government's immorality, espoused by their "devil take the hindmost" economic and social policies.
  We are concerned about all crimes in London and in our society as a whole. We are concerned about the crimes of poverty, homelessness and unemployment. All those crimes have been perpetrated by the Government on the people of London. At the next election the Government will be called before the court of the people, and we believe that they will be pronounced guilty. The Home Secretary did not say anything about those crimes. He did not say anything about the other crimes that are prevalent in London at the moment, such as fraud in the City of London, involving tens of millions of pounds. The Conservative Government seem soft on such crimes, but tend to be hard on social security fraud.
  The Home Secretary did not say anything about the collapse of the football hooligan trials, involving the possible fabrication of police evidence. I am glad that Commissioner Imbert has promised action. We in this House have a right to demand that action, because the collapse of those trials has resulted in a serious undermining of public confidence in police evidence procedures. We must be careful about putting excessive political pressure on the police to secure prosecutions and increase clear-up rates. As the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have said, we need to improve the clear-up rates in London but we must not follow the bad example of the Kent police in apparently doing deals with convicted prisoners and getting them to admit to previously unsolved crimes.
  1432
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook directed the House's attention to the causes of crime. Unemployment, poverty and ignorance are not excuses for crime, but they are factors in criminal activity. We bombard our young with images of affluence on television, and in films and advertisements. Then we deprive many of them of the wherewithal to share in the affluence that they see around them. It is not really surprising if so many of them fall foul of temptation. The yobbos in the Stock Exchange with their "Hooray Henry" attitudes give the lead in many ways to the sort of street crime that we have to suffer in London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) talked about the alarming rise in drink-related crime. Again, the advertising of the drink manufacturers is aimed specifically at the 18 to 24-year-old group and lit is in that age group that instances of crime are at their highest. Alcohol abuse in London and in the country generally is now rampant. We demand more Government action on that. There should be health warnings on all alcohol products and a total ban on advertising drink on television, in the cinemas and newspapers. Consumption in public places should be banned and there should be much stiffer sentences for alcohol-related crimes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made a thoughtful and eloquent speech. She was foully abused by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, who is not in his place for me foully to abuse him, so I shall move quickly on.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to freemasonry. We have raised that matter with the Home Secretary and the Commissioner. There is public concern, particularly about M r. Woollard's report and his subsequent fate. The police must not be perceived as having some higher loyalties than the impartial and even-handed enforcement of the law. Opposition Members believe that, because of its rites and oaths of brotherly loyalty, freemasonry is incompatible with police membership.
  Policing in London is highly complex, not least because of the proliferation of specialised national functions that Metropolitan police must take on and which detract from local policing needs. Many local policing needs could have been mentioned during the debate. I am particularly concerned about the failure of the Metropolitan police to enforce traffic regulations in London. They say, "We cannot do that because we have insufficient resources." Quite frankly, if Parliament wills the ends, it should also will the means to enforce the ends. It is not acceptable for force orders to be pronounced by the Metropolitan police, in effect saying what parts of the laws that are passed in the House shall be enforced by the police. That is not the duty of the police. The function of the police in London, as elsewhere, is to enforce the laws that are passed by Parliament. That must be done even-handedly, impartially and with resolution in respect of all forms of crime, including street offences, parking offences and related matters.
  It is a fact that the police are regularly used by the Government in an overtly political fashion. That is seen most graphically during a strike, particularly in Wapping. The police officers whom I know have expressed privately and, on certain occasions, publicly, their dissatisfaction with being caught like the contents of a sandwich—between two sides who are set against each other. often

  1433
  incited by the political policies of the Government. That was particularly true in Wapping, and it remains true in Dover and other strike situations.
  The Labour party in London is far more concerned than Conservative Members about law and order in the capital city. We support the police in London, and we shall continue to support them while they pursue the interests of Londoners. It is our intention to support the police by giving them far less to do on the streets of London. We shall do that by creating a socially and economically just society. That will be the task of the next Labour Government. The sooner that happens, the fewer occasions there will be to have inadequate debates about complex policing matters, but, of course, we are given only rare opportunities to do so.
  2.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I shall not follow the example of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) by accusing my opponents of crimes in this place. It would be difficult to do so, if only because so few members of the Labour party are present to commit such crimes. In view of their frequent criticism of policing in London, their complaints about accountability, and their newly disclosed adherence to some of the principles of law and order, it is remarkable that only three Labour Members from London seats were in their places at the start of the debate.
  Mr. Tony Banks: We do not have ministerial cars.
  Mr. Hogg: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is extremely venal, but the ordinary people who walk the streets will not find that explanation particularly attractive, especially from somebody who liked riding around in the Greater London council official car.
  The other point that I regard as unattractive is the denial of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that certain Labour Members are profoundly hostile to the police. We all know that that allegation is true. I can prove that fact conclusively with quotations from the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Barking (Ms. Richardson), for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). If any hon. Member challenges me, I shall read them out.
  Not only do I find the denial by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of the hostility of some parts of his party to the police surprising, but I find his analysis of the problem less than persuasive. When unemployment was rising, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook attributed crime to that. Now that unemployment is falling he attributes the increasing crime to prosperity. That is a remarkable case of facing both ways. However, as he has some personal political problems at the moment, I do not find that wholly surprising.
  The right hon. Gentleman's command of detail was less impressive than I would have expected from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. He congratulated his party on the support that it gave to the firearms legislation. I know that the right hon. Member was not able to be present at the Report stage of the Bill. I make no criticism
  1434
  of that, but had he been there, he would have known that a number of his hon. Friends were among those who opposed the Firearms Bill in Division after Division and on Third Reading.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was one of those who called for a complete ban on self-loading rifles. He nods in agreement to that. Perhaps he does not know that his fellow Front Bench spokesman the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) voted in favour of an amendment to permit some classes of self-loading rifle to remain on section 1 control.
  Mr. Hattersley: The position is absolutely clear and well-documented. We were in favour of the proposals that the Home Secretary gave to the House. We voted for them on Second Reading. Then, in Committee, we discovered—and perhaps the Under-Secretary is responsible—that the Government's definition of self-loading was so incompetent that the trade could not run it.
  Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that that is not the case. The truth is that Opposition Members could not make up their minds. They saw a bandwagon rolling past them and they hopped on it. That is neither attractive nor laudable.
  The right hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that his comments on clear-up figures disclosed less than his customary control of detail. When he said that the clear-up figures in 1987 were the same as those in 1986, broadly speaking he was correct. However, he failed to point out that in the first quarter of this year, the clear-up rate had increased from 16 to 18 per cent. Much more damaging to his cause was that he failed to draw the House's attention to the important provisos contained in the Commissioner's report. On page 41 of the report the Commissioner drew attention to the contrasting trends between primary clear-ups and secondary clear-ups.
  Primary clear-ups are those where the offence is dealt with by a charge, a summons or a caution, the most significant test. Had the right hon. Gentleman quoted those figures, he would have observed that there was an increase of 7 per cent. in the clear-up rate in 1987 in comparison with 1986. If the right hon. Gentleman comes to this place to make broad criticisms, it would be better by far for his reputation, not to mention for the knowledge of the House, if he were a little fuller in his comments.
  There was some difference of opinion between Opposition Members about manpower. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook approves of increases in police establishment. Some of his hon. Friends do not. I have grave doubts whether the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) favours such increases. He made some comments about policemen with sirens late at night which suggested to me that he lacked support for increases in manpower. Moreover, to criticise the Government——
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not, as I have only six minutes.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has made a charge against me and should give way.
  Mr. Hogg: No, I now have only five minutes left and I shall continue.
  It is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not draw attention to the fact that in the present year we shall spend 59 per cent. more in real terms on the Metropolitan police force than was spent in

  1435
  1978–79, Moreover, by the end of this year, the manpower of the police force will have increased by 5,500 since May 1979.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, notwithstanding the various increases in the manpower figures, the efficiency of the police and their ability to deploy people on the streets had diminished. This suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman had not read the Commissioner's report, so let me remind him of page 13, where the Commissioner says that as a result of more efficient use of manpower, arrests have increased by 6 per cent. in the current year, and the number of police officers available for street duty, which one would think would be one of the paramount tests to be applied, has increased by 13 per cent.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman grumbled away about these points and, when I reply to them clearly and precisely, he grumbles again. I am sorry, but there it is. Perhaps next time before a debate of this kind, he will read the Commissioner's report a little more fully.
  I agree entirely with what my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said about the more effective use of manpower. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North made two important and specific points about police attitudes to road traffic, which will be considered. The broad message from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and it is also the view of the Commissioner, was that the Metropolitan police force needs to make yet more efficient use of its manpower.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North made an important point about sexual offences. He is right to draw attention to the incidence of such offences, particular
  1436
  rape. I am glad to say—the hon. Member may know—that there was an 11 per cent. decrease in the number of rape cases.
  Mr. Corbyn: Reported cases.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, reported rape cases decreased by 11 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Metropolitan police force is attaching more significance to this class of offence and to the methods used to deal with it and with the victims. Clearly, if policemen are not sympathetic, people will not come forward with complaints. Last year, four dedicated rape suites were opened and, in the coming year, another four will be opened. About 1,300 officers have received specific training in this sector, and the number of female police surgeons has been increased, so that 15 female doctors are available to deal with such complaints.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington understandably focused on street robbery. It was partly to combat that crane that we incorporated the knives provision in the Criminal Justice Bill. About 56 per cent. of all robberies take place in 16 divisions of the Metropolitan police force. Over the past year, the Metropolitan police transferred additional resources to those 16 divisions, which resulted in a substantial reduction in the rate of increase of robbery offences. Police in London are conscious of the need to tackle robbery on the streets.
  The same applies to burglary. I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about burglary. He stressed what crime prevention can do, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) echoed that, though in the slightly different context of the involvement of the police in community action and what the community can do.
  It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Southwark (Archaeological Heritage)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the subject of the protection of Southwark's archaeological heritage. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environmemt will be especially sympathetic as he, like me, represents a south London constituency.
  Many people are excited by the opportunity of preserving the heritage of what is rapidly being discovered to be one of the most interesting archaeological areas in Britain. The concern that motivated the debate is to ensure that hon. Members and the Government now act to protect and preserve this archaeological treasure trove.
  Southwark is one of this country's oldest settlements. It was a key settlement because two highways—Stane street from the south coast and Watling street from Dover—converged and became at Southwark the crossing point of the Thames, where London bridge is now situated. Southwark was the southern suburb of Londinium. The excavations are revealing much of great importance about Southwark and its past.
  In a few minutes, I shall make specific propositions about what needs to be done, but, first, I shall identify the two key issues. To protect Southwark's heritage we need, first, money and, secondly, time.
  I shall list the sites that have emerged as being of particular importance to show the breadth and diversity of our heritage. Bermondsey abbey was a Cluniac priory of the 11th century and was one of the major, if not the major, Cluniac settlements in England. It was a huge abbey located at the junction of what is now Abbey street and Tower bridge road. Yesterday I returned with my younger brother who is a Southwark councillor for the Abbey ward, to the part of the site being excavated and we looked with archaeologists at the exciting excavations that are going on at that borough council-owned site.
  The Bricklayers Arms site is almost immediately outside my front door. It is in private ownership and is about to be developed for housing. Recently, an article appeared in The Standard headed,
  "Official: Bermondsey really is prehistoric. Archaeologists have discovered the first positive evidence that prehistoric man once inhabited inner London.
  A team from the Museum of London has found wooden structures and tools dating back to between 2000 and 3000 BC in an area which until now has been something of a mystery."
  I do not think that the area has been a mystery to many of us, but archaeologically that has been the case. The site is the former Bricklayers Arms goods depot. The museum's archaeologist, Michael Hammerson, said:
  "This is the first real proof of what might be regarded as a permanent habitation. It does suggest a quite intensive occupation of the area. It is an important find and there is no doubt whatever that other unexplored parts of greater London have a similar or even greater potential for transforming our knowledge of the region's history."
  Planning permission was granted last week by the council to Ideal Homes, and any day now there may be a large-scale private housing development.
  Hay's wharf is a large site that is also in private ownership. It is owned by St. Martins' property company. The site is opposite the Tower of London and adjacent to Tower bridge. There have been amazing and wonderful
  1438
  discoveries on that site in recent weeks that have rightly commanded great press attention. First, there was the discovery that the Rosary palace of Edward II might have been built on that site. It is also probable that the house of Sir John Fastolf was built there. Shakespeare took the name to create one of his greatest characters. His residence was moated and contained gardens and pools. I was on that very site yesterday in hot sunshine. I spent the whole morning there and at the Bermondsey Abbey site. They have found wonderful things there—for example, a leather male vestment, probably from the middle ages, and children's shoes in perfect condition because they have been preserved by the moist clay. They have also found a piece of stained glass. I wish that I could have brought it to the House, but I could not do so because they dared not allow it to leave their possession. It is an example of very early stained glass that contains a beautiful representation of a lion. In all probability it came from a window of the royal palace on that site. They have also found fascinating timber work and foundation work that identify the pattern of what must have been the early moat and dockyard.
  The developers, St. Martins' property company, have given the archaeologists six months to explore the site. They are using that time to great advantage, but one needs to ask how much time should be given to them and how much guaranteed protection there should be for the site. The developer is not compelled to give the archaeologists that amount of time. The amount of time that has been given is quite generous and I applaud the company for that. A public inquiry is now scheduled, which may lead to more time being allowed to the archaeologists.
  The last of the major sites is the Courage brewery site, just off Southwark bridge road. That led to a long article in The Times on 11 May, headed
  "The Docklands of the Caesars."
  It said:
  "The latest piece of Roman London to emerge from the mud could be the most significant archaeological find for years—yet may be lost to new building."
  What was discovered during Easter weekend this year was a warehouse, 15 ft, by at least 30 ft. It was a wooden structure and the first suggestion that the Southwark side of the Roman Thames was an international commercial port before AD 200. I shall read what was said to make clear the excitement that the importance of the site generated. The warehouse was found by a team of Museum of London archaeologists, led by Harvey Sheldon, whom I know well and to whom I have often spoken. The British Museum's Romano-British curator, Dr. Potter, who is an international authority on the subject, was ecstatic about the discovery and said that he had never seen anything like it:
  "'It is terribly important. To find a Second Century wooden warehouse…with the floors as perfectly preserved as any modern building, it is quite extraordinary. We now know there were a lot of Roman settlements in the Southwark area, and I would think that you're getting a whole series of warehouses. It is emerging as a sort of Docklands of Roman times.
  The building was constructed using the finest carpentry skills: no nails have been found. The floor, made from great oak sheets, has been preserved, along with a ramp down which barrels would have been rolled to just below ground level, where they could be kept cool. The floor is surrounded by the sloping remains of wooden walls, with mortice-andtenon joints still intact.' Potter enthused: 'The simple fact is that we need to know more, more, more. When you've got a state of preservation like that, it offers an exceptional chance of answering a lot of long-posed questions.'"

  1439
  I have taken an interest in these things for many years, and not only in Southwark, but that site prompted a reawakening of my interest. I wrote to the noble Lord Caithness and received a courteous reply. I wrote to English Heritage, too. That site needs only another six weeks or £40,000 worth of work to ensure that what can be found and preserved, is dealt with.
  I shall now list the other sites, and then discuss the politics and policies that relate to them: Phoenix wharf is in private hands; Platform wharf, by Cherry Garden pier in Rotherhithe, is in the control of the LDDC, which has so far done a good job for Southwark archaeology. The previously lost palace of Edward III is there. There is a chance to preserve it and open it to the public, thanks to the LDDC. There is an archaeologically important site in the grounds of Guy's hospital. Yet to be discovered is the original site of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, which is thought to be on a larger site currently being developed. There are various exciting discoveries on Southwark street.
  The length of this list shows the importance of Southwark in British archaeology. It is all the responsibility of English Heritage, or the Historical Buildings and Monuments Commission, as it is more formally known. The House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, in its first report of 1986–87, to which the Government responded on New Year's Eve last year, examined ways in which English Heritage and the Government should be more responsive.
  There clearly needs to be guaranteed protection for areas of such significance. At present, if a site is scheduled, a delay is allowed before development can go ahead, but there is no guarantee of money. The danger, in areas such as Southwark, of waiting for sites to be scheduled lies in the rapid pace of development in the regeneration of the inner city. All sites must be dealt with in time, so it is vital that time and money are provided for publicly and privately developed sites.
  The Courage site is in Southwark council's hands. For reasons that I will not go into now, the council has a tight budget. Its leader is supportive of the archaeological rescue operation. If Southwark has no available money we must none the less ensure that it does not lose the opportunity of co-operating—as the landlord—with the Government in getting the archaeological work done. The same applies to any local authority or public authority, such as the LDDC. The same applies also to private sites. Apart from a four-month delay in certain circumstances, there is no statutory guarantee that the developers such as St. Martin's at the Hay's wharf site will carry out archaeological rescue. I have been given a letter which makes it clear that some developers resist any such rescue proposal. They are asked whether development can be deferred and often say that that is not worth while financially. Then the site in question is lost for all time.
  I quote a letter from Regalian, developers in south London, to the Museum of London:
  "I have considered all that was said at our meeting and I regret to say that we are not swayed by the arguments in favour of developer funding. We believe that this type of work which is undertaken for local or national purposes should be paid for out of local or national funds."
  So, although there are some powers in planning law to impose planning conditions on private developers, they might well say that the profit motive forced them to go ahead—and the rescue operation cannot be secured.
  1440
  The same sometimes applies to public bodies. The Department of Transport often finds itself involved with archaeologically important sites, but in 1987 it donated £100,000 to English Heritage—hardly enough to cover any of the sites.
  I propose, first, that Southwark, or, more narrowly, north Southwark, which happens to be conterminous with my constituency, should be urgently designated an area of outstanding archaeological importance. I know that the Government are carrying out a review, but I earnestly hope that, as this is not one of those debates where we are just going through the motions, it can be completed quickly and the area added to the five already listed and designated in Britain.
  Secondly, there should be no differentiation between public and private sites, because they should both be eligible for Government funding through English Heritage as the appropriate agency, but the funding should be increased to ensure that the necessary money is forthcoming.
  Thirdly, financing to English Heritage should be increased. One of the tragedies is that although it is doing some good work, much of its resources are being spent on post-excavation activity and not on the major recovery activity. Bids in 1985–86 for excavation work totalled £3·8 million, but the grant was only £0·3 million. Its budget is £7·2 million, but it is clear that it needs more funds as it rejects an enormous number of sites for listing.
  It has been assessed that 10,000 archaeological sites are being destroyed countrywide. An article in The Independent on 8 January, only six months ago, stated:
  "According to the Council for British Archaeology there are now about 15,000 archaeological sites being destroyed without excavation throughout the country through lack of funds".
  I hope the Minister will accept the urgency for more funding and more control to allow time for the rescue operations to be put in train. Above all, the Government need to reconsider the special and urgent case for Southwark archaeology to be protected.
  People may ask, "Is it equally important to preserve and protect the archaeology as it is to build houses, hospitals and schools?" The local paper that the Minister and I share—the South London Press—recently polled a random sample of local people from south London. Its headline stated:
  "You have your say on keeping heritage alive."
  There was not one person who did not think that preserving the heritage was vital, because the heritage of Southwark, as of any other community, is what people treasure and want to know more about. It should be preserved and the Government must act immediately to ensure that it is.
  2.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has seen The Guardian today, he will not be surprised to see me here rather than at the launch of the Scottish unleaded petrol week. It is the stamp of bad journalism to report only part of a story. He will be the first to understand that my priorities as a Minister should at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for standing in for me

  1441
  in Scotland. It is good that there is an all-party approach towards persuading more motorists to use unleaded petrol.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting his case so fully. I am sorry that the problems that beset the world of hooliganism precluded me from joining him yesterday morning. I promise him that I would have much preferred to view the archaeological sites to which he referred than do the work that I was, in fact, undertaking. I make it clear straight away that the Government attach great importance to this country's extraordinarily rich and varied archaeological heritage. We are fully conscious that our present civilisation is only possible because of the achievements of our predecessors over many generations. If we ignore this part of our heritage, we deny ourselves an important understanding of how this country has become what it is, and archaeological remains and discoveries are a constant source of wonder and interest to many of us. Historic Southwark clearly played an important part in the history of London, and the hon. Gentleman is justly proud of that. We all know, I am sure, of Chaucer starting his famous pilgrimage to Canterbury from the Tabard inn at Southwark; of Shakespeare and his companions drawing the crowds at the Globe theatre, which is to be reconstructed. We can see Southwark cathedral standing proudly by the river, surrounded by the borough market and the Victorian railway line, to testify to continuing values in a constantly changing world.
  In recent years archaeologists have shown us that Southwark has even more to offer. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is increasing evidence that historic Southwark, far from being the less-favoured south bank, where nothing happened, is busy and alive. Indeed, it is largely our present wave of development in the City, following the big bang, that is spreading over into the south. That is showing us that Roman London did exactly the same. Perhaps we can seek to draw a parallel between Southwark's past and its present. It is certainly good to see new developments coming to the south of the river, with the prospect of future prosperity, which our descendants may look on with as much respect as we regard our medieval heritage.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly point out, we now have evidence that prehistoric men once lived on the Bricklayers Arms site—one of the first signs of human habitation in inner London, and some of us are becoming increasingly aware that once, long before that, hippos roamed over what is now Trafalgar square. We find increasing signs of the Roman occupation, at the Bricklayers Arms site and on the waterfront at the old Courage brewery site. We see signs of extensive medieval occupation, for example, in the influential Bermondsey abbey—the site of which has recently been scheduled—and the reputed palace of Edward II at Hay's wharf, London Bridge City. This is a significant batch of archaeological discoveries, in a short time, for any area or any constituency.
  Now we come to the difficult problems. They are both philosophical and practical. How much of this archaeological heritage can we, as a country, preserve? Indeed, how much should we preserve? Which takes precedence—the needs of the present or the needs of the irreplaceable,
  1442
  fragile heritage? How far will future generations wish us to preserve their past for them? Who should pay for the archaeological work?
  It is sometimes said that we need more development and more conservation. There is a genuine dilemma here. The pressures for development have never been greater than they are today. Equally, the public awareness of the desirability of conservation and the value of the heritage of attractive countryside and historic buildings has never been higher. Archaeology gives rise to particular problems; the increasing sophistication of archaeological technique means that finds may be discovered which, perhaps, a generation ago, might not have been made, and such finds may now be interpreted with greater accuracy.
  That is an exciting advance in knowledge and skill. It is also, to be frank, a practical problem for the developer. A listed building can be seen and identified, and its value assessed. The archaeological find is unpredictable. It is probably not exaggerating to suggest that in historic urban areas each new development site may overlie valuable archaeological remains, and there may be two very different attitudes to that fact.
  Government must, as so often, seek to find a balance between the different sides. We have the mechanism for protecting archaelogical sites and monuments by placing them on the Secretary of State's schedule of ancient monuments, compiled under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979. These are, by definition, monuments of national importance and, because of that, the Secretary of State keeps for himself the power of granting or withholding the scheduled monument consent which must be obtained before any works are carried out which would affect or damage such monuments. As I said, we have recently scheduled Bermondsey abbey, because of the considerable remains there and the importance of the abbey to medieval London.
  Scheduling, however, does not mean that the monument must be left untouched for all time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that in many cases that would not be in the monument's best interests, for often the work for which scheduled monument consent may be sought will be desirable repairs to the fabric. The great majority of applications for scheduled monument consent are granted, although conditions may be attached to them. The procedure does, however, ensure that a close look is taken at the effects of the proposals on the monument and the relative merits of allowing it to be altered, developed, investigated before development or preservation in its entirety. Each case is different, and I cannot—indeed, I must not—prejudge what the decision would be on any individual application.
  Scheduling will be appropriate only for a fairly small proportion of the known monuments. English Heritage is embarking on a programme of assessing all the known monuments and considering on a comprehensive basis which ones merit scheduling. We expect that, as a result, it will recommend a large number of additional schedulings to us, but the total proportion will still remain small. I am sure that it is right that, since scheduling imposes additional restrictions over what a landowner can do with his land, it should be imposed only where it can be justified archaeologically by the application of stringent criteria.
  Other monuments are not left without protection, but it is right that monuments or sites of more local importance should be considered primarily at the local level. We have made it clear, however, in a circular to local

  1443
  authorities that where development would be likely to affect an ancient monument, whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled, the desirability of preserving the monument and its setting is a material consideration to be taken into account in determining planning applications. Indeed, that approach has been backed by the courts. Although planning considerations are many and varied, and the process of balancing them all, each with their due weight, can sometimes demand the skills of an expert juggler, the archaeological considerations must be included in the balancing act.
  There is a third mechanism for taking account of archaeological considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, although at present its practical extent is comparatively limited. This is the designation of areas of archaeological importance—AAIs for short—introduced by the 1979 Act which I have already mentioned. Five areas have so far been designated—the historic town centres of Canterbury, Chester, Exeter, Hereford and York.
  The significance of designation—although a local authority may designate, such a designation takes effect only if confirmed by the Secretary of State—is that there is then an opportunity for a nominated investigating authority to enter a site and carry out archaeological investigations for a period of up to four and a half months before development can take place. I know that many elements in the archaeological world value this legislative provision and would like to see it extended. English Heritage is currently reviewing the operation of the scheme so far. I must point out, however, that the AAI procedure does not allow for preservation of finds or monuments—it allows only a breathing space, effectively for rescue archaeology. In that respect, before we designate more such areas we perhaps need to think through carefully and, I agree, as speedily as possible how we should best protect archaeological remains under towns—bearing in mind, as I said earlier, that there will be some areas in which one may expect valuable finds every time one puts in a spade—while at the same time not putting unreasonable restrictions on much needed development.
  All the points that the hon. Gentleman raised were significant in this respect and I shall bring them to the attention of English Heritage. Perhaps I may also ask him to pursue in conversation or in a meeting with me any other ideas that he may have, so that we can ensure that they are fully considered in the current review. I emphasise and respect the need for there to be no hesitation or foot-dragging in the consideration of these very important details so that a decision can he reached as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman will also accept that digging everything up may not always be the best solution; that may be better left to the more advanced techniques of future generations.
  With regard to where the money comes from, I should point out straight away that, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, we have no bottomless pot of gold. For the avoidance of doubt, I should put straight a misapprehension which sometimes occurs. The scheduling of monuments and the designation of an AAI does not bring with it any financial resources to the owner or authority concerned. It is up to the investigating authority to decide its own priorities as to what, within the AAI, it wishes and has the resources to investigate, and to stimulate local developers' or authorities' interest in the work being done and its importance. AAI designation is an opportunity for the archaeologist—not a burden. There is no immutable law as to who should pay for
  1444
  archaeological investigations, and nor should there be. The archaeological heritage belongs to all of us, individuals and companies and local and central government, and it is right that each sector, public and private, should be willing to contribute as appropriate.
  It is a hard fact of life that we all—central Government, local government, firms and individuals—have to determine our own priorities. Fortunate indeed are the bodies or individuals whose resources are adequate to meet all the demands that they can anticipate. I am extremely encouraged, however, to see how far the private sector is responding to the needs of the archaeological heritage by providing facilities, time and financial support for archaeological investigations. Indeed, I understand that a recent report by the British Archaeological Trust shows that public and private sector developers contributed some £3·37 mill ion for rescue archaeology in Britain in 1986–87, in contrast to a mere £58,000 in 1978–79. Much credit here must go to the constructive relationships that have been forged between developers and archaeologists, which have borne fruit in the code of practice issued in 1986 and sponsored jointly by the British Property Federation and the standing conference of archaeological unit managers. The code not only encourages developers to provide financial support to enable worthwhile archaeological investigations to take place but provides valuable and sensible guidelines for mutual co-operation and communication between the two. I believe that central Government should be fully involved, and we achieve that by looking to English Heritage to provide financial help with rescue archaeology. English Heritage is constrained by the need to determine its own internal priorities as well as by its total grant in aid from the Department, which itself must be balanced against other demands on the public expenditure purse.
  The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to Bermondsey abbey and the Courage brewery site, both owned by Southwark council, and suggested that they were examples of cases in which more central Government funding might be appropriate. With regard to the Courage site, I understand that the Greater London council, before its abolition, gave £120,000 for archaeological work there and that the proposed development was to be undertaken jointly by Southwark and the GLC. English Heritage, since its establishment, has given a further £71,000 and has committed £75,000 more for post-excavation work. That is indeed a generous contribution. At Bermondsey abbey, too, the excavations which have been going on for several years have been financed generously by English Heritage.
  I will bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention more detail on important issues such as the Bricklayers Arms and London Bridge City sites and other areas that he mentioned. Suffice it to say that he and I share the same conviction as readers of our local paper about the importance that we should attach to this work. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the thrust of his remarks is well taken and we shall pursue the individual points that he has raised. I hope that through further discussion outside the Chamber we can reach a satisfactory conclusion in the interests of both the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
  The Motion, having been made at half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Three o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people were employed at Her Majesty's Land Registry during each of the past 10 years; how many are now employed by the Land Registry; and whether he has any proposals for increasing staffing of the Land Registry.

  The Attorney-General
  Staff in post as at 1 April in each of the last 10 years:

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  1988

  8,200·0

  728·0

  8,928·0

  1987

  7,310·0

  608·0

  7,918·0

  1986

  7,029·0

  262·5

  7,291·5

  1985

  6,820·5

  32·9

  7,149·5

  1984

  6,676·5

  316·5

  6,993·0

  1983

  5,818·0

  712·5

  6,530·5

  1982

  5,546·5

  361·5

  5,908·0

  1981

  5,680·5

  3·0

  5,683·5

  1980

  5,898·0

  45·0

  5,943·0

  1979

  5,543·0

  47·0

  5,590·0

  1978

  5,309·0

  42·0

  5,351·0

  There are current proposals for additional resources to meet the Land Registry's growing commitments, which have nearly trebled over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of staffing the Land Registry during the last year for which records are available; what was the total cost of operating the Land Registry during that year; and what was the total in fees received by the Land Registry during that year.

  The Attorney-General
  The provisional memorandum trading account for 1987–88 shows staff costs (including superannuation) of £94·04 million, total costs of £121·14 million and income from fees of £141·07 million.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the minimum, maximum and average time taken to process an application to the Land Registry to complete a registration.

  The Attorney-General
  The minimum processing time can be as low as one week. Applications so processed include the registration of transactions where the register has already been computerised, expedited applications and many straightforward applications where no points arise. The average time for processing substantive applications at the end of May 1988 was 16 weeks.

  No information is available as to the maximum processing time, but many complex applications take some considerable time to process and can be dependent on the ability of applicants to deal satisfactorily with departmental requisitions.
  724
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how much profit he estimates was made by the Land Registry during each of the last 10 years for which records are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The surpluses shown in the Land Registry's memorandum trading accounts for the last 10 years are as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  5·93

  1979–80

  8·13

  1980–81

  1·17

  1981–82

  6·93

  1982–83

  12·40

  1983–84

  10·18

  1984–85

  20·64

  1985–86

  16·98

  1986–87

  26·02

  1987–88

  19·93

  The figures for 1987–88 are, as yet, only provisional.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General on what basis fees are payable to the Land Registry for the registration of properties assessed.

  The Attorney-General
  Section 145 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (as amended) provides for the making of fee orders, under which applications to register conveyances and transfers are charged on an ad valorem basis related to the price or value of the property. Most minor applications are either charged at flat rate or there is no fee. The current fee order is the Land Registration Fee Order 1988.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will establish an inquiry into the operation and staffing of Her Majesty's Land Registry; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The National Audit Office has conducted a review of the operations of Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Comptroller and Auditor General reported to Parliament the findings of the review on 28 July 1987. The Committee of Public Accounts has considered the report and the report on its findings is awaited.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how long he estimates it takes for applications to the Land Registry to be opened; and how long it takes thereafter for required payments received from applicants to be banked.

  The Attorney-General
  Applications to the Land Registry are opened on the day of receipt and cleared funds in respect of the cheques associated with these applications are normally available five working days later.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will institute a system whereby interest is paid to applicants on moneys received from them, where registration is not completed within two months of the date when fees paid to the Land Registry have been banked.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Secret Intelligence Operations (Member's Book)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take in the light of the publication of the
  725
  book "The Friends—Britain's Post War Secret Intelligence Operations" written by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 22 June, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. There is no legal action that I propose to take in the light of the publication of this book.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committee on Scottish Affairs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will estimate the administrative costs of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in each of the years 1983 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Beith
  The administrative costs of Select Committees borne on the House of Commons Vote include the costs of visits in the United Kingdom and overseas, the fees and expenses of specialist advisers, witnesses' expenses, entertainment expenses and the costs of preparing minutes of evidence for publication. Details of all such costs in respect of the Scottish Affairs Committee in the financial years 1983–84 to 1986–87 are set out in the Select Committee returns for each Session. The totals of these costs were as follows: 1983–84, £12,162; 1984–85, £38,612; 1985–86, £13,487; and 1986–87, £23,535.

  Printing and publishing costs are borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and are also shown in the Sessional Returns. Staff serving the Committee varied from time to time in this period, and had other responsibilities in addition to their work for the Committee; it is not possible, therefore, to give precise figures of staff costs. For most of this time, however, the staff of the Scottish Affairs Committee consisted of a deputy principal clerk, an assistant clerk and a secretary.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has carried out monitoring exercises in accordance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively.

  Mr. Brooke
  In 1982 the Department carried out a study of career opportunities for women in the Treasury, which included the monitoring of relative success rates for men and women at an internal promotion board from the EO to the HEO grade and a comparison of these rates with relative assessments of long-term potential.

  This year the Treasury will be participating in the OMCS review of career development issues, including the promotion process and allocation to duties, by gender and ethnic origin. This will involve monitoring two internal promotion boards during 1988 and calculating the likely representation in five and 10 years' time of women and ethnic minority staff in the grade levels covered by the exercise. This information will be used to judge future equal opportunities performance.
  726
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring of ethnic recruitment to his Department has been undertaken; and what have been the results of that monitoring.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Treasury introduced the ethnic monitoring of recruitment for the AO and AA grades in London in July 1987. This is now carried out continuously. Results suggest that the number of appointments offered to members of ethnic minorities is broadly in proportion to the number of eligible candidates applying from each ethnic group.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what extra allocations of funds have been made, other than those related to the nurses pay settlement, to(a) the Scottish Office, (b) the Northern Ireland Office and (c) the Welsh Office since he published his public expenditure White Paper; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]Only a few low-cost adjustments in 1988–89 amounting to about £3 million in Scotland, and £1 million in Wales, and no change for the Northern Ireland Office.

  VAT
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to provide that, where a company incurs liability for value added tax or deposits taken from customers for goods not yet supplied, value added tax may be collected on a quarterly basis for all the deposits the company has taken, rather than the company being required to raise a second invoice for each customer's job to account for the value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]Existing legislation already provides for this where a company supplies goods to customers who are not registered for VAT, since there is no obligation in such cases to issue a tax invoice for either the deposit or the main supply. However, if a tax invoice were not issued to a registered customer in respect of VAT charged on a deposit, the customer would not, in turn, he able to reclaim the VAT.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Holloway Prison
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours a day women spent out of their cells, on C1 psychiatric unit, Holloway, from 14 May to 14 June; and how many women have attended the skills training unit each day during the same period of time.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the period 14 may to 14 June 1988, inmates on Cl unit spent an average of 5·7 hours out of cell each day.

  The table gives the number attending the skills training unit each weekday.

  Weekday

  Number attending skills training unit

  May

  16

  18

  727

  Weekday

  Number attending skills training unit

  17

  4

  18

  17

  19

  14

  20

  16

  23

  17

  24

  5

  25

  14

  26

  17

  27

  14

  30

  10

  31

  6

  June

  1

  9

  2

  8

  3

  10

  6

  12

  7

  4

  8

  15

  9

  12

  10

  10

  13

  12

  14

  5

  1 The unit does not open at weekends or on public holidays. On 10 June the unit remained closed because of shortage of staff.

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the current average time taken in dealing with full passport applications at each passport office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett).

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for political asylum in 1988 to date have been refused permission to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; to what countries they have been sent upon refusal; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Recent press reports have referred to information gathered weekly from Heathrow and Gatwick airports and Dover, for guidance of management. These describe the number of asylum applications made by passengers arriving at those ports, and the initial action taken. The returns do not trace further action, for example, to grant temporary admission or to remove a passenger who was initially detained.

  The latest available refugee statistics are for 1987 and were published earlier this month in Home Office statistical bulletin 16/88, copies of which are in the Library.

  Itinerants (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Wiltshire as to what recent checks have been made by the police concerning the insurance, road 728
  fund tax and where applicable MOT certificates of vehicles in the convoy of itinerants at present in the vicinity of Stonehenge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Wiltshire that over the period of the summer solstice police resources were concentrated as a priority on the maintenance of public order and prevention of mass trespass in the Stonehenge area. Nine vehicles were impounded following the attempted occupation of Stonehenge by a group of people on 16 June. Subsequent checks showed that eight of these were unroadworthy and they have been retained by the police.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been received recently by the National Television Licence Records Office from the Walsall metropolitan borough council on behalf of pensioners for the concessionary licence fee; how many were approved and on what dates; and how many submitted before the change in the regulation remain outstanding and for which proportion.

  Mr. Renton
  Three applications have been received since 1 January this year, all of them before the new regulations came into force. They were approved on 4 February, 29 March and 12 April. There are no applications outstanding. However, I understand the hon. Member has been in correspondence with NTVLRO about some further applications which Walsall metropolitan borough council says it sent earlier this year, but of which there is no record of receipt.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards identity cards being issued for all citizens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question of the issue of identity cards has been considered from time to time, but we remain to be persuaded that there is a sufficiently strong case for their introduction.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report from the Home Office advisory committee on drugs relating to anabolic steroids.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]We expect to receive advice shortly from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on extension of the controls in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to anabolic steroids. A further announcement will be made when this advice has been received and considered.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the overall additional estimated costs that will be incurred by local authorities as a result of the implementation of the provisions of the new Education Reform Bill.
  729
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of the progressive implementation of the measures in the Education Reform Bill for schools and further education will vary from authority to authority according to developments already under way. Some redirection of recurrent and capital resources will be required. My right hon. Friend has announced proposals for the education support grants programme in 1989–90, which includes some £65 million new expenditure related to the Bill's provisions for financial delegation and the national curriculum. A significant part of the programme of in-service training grants, currently supporting expenditure of £270 million, will be directed towards the implementation of the Bill's provisions in 1989–90 and subsequent years. There will also be implications for capital programmes within the Government's plans to enable local education authorities and voluntary bodies to spend more than £750 million on improving school buildings between now and 1990–91. The Government have set aside £65 million over the next three years mainly for the development and administration of assessment procedures, for which local authorities will not be charged fees. The Bill's provisions for the transfer of funding responsibility for polytechnics and colleges to central Government will lead to a reduction in spending and grant for local authorities of some £800 million from 1989–90.

  Home Education
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in England are educated at home(a) by their parents and, (b) by local education authority tutors; and what is the cost per child per week.

  Mr. Dunn
  The precise information requested is not available. Based on local education authority returns to the Department of Education and Science, 8,266 pupils in England were receiving education otherwise than at school in January 1987 under arrangements made by the authorities. The number includes those being taught in hospitals, excluding hospital special schools, in other groups such as units for spastics, assessment centres and community homes as well as at home. Figures for the various categories are not available; nor are the separate costs of this provision.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost of educating a child(a) at a state primary school and (b) at a state secondary school in England.

  Mr. Dunn
  The average net institutional recurrent expenditure per pupil in England in 1986–87 was £900 in maintained primary and £1,340 in maintained secondary schools.

  Net institutional recurrent expenditure covers the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not cover the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  Truancy
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many prosecutions for truancy of pupils aged(a) under 11 years of age, (b)730
  years, (c) 12 years, (d) 13 years, (e) 14 years and (f) 15 years were instituted in each of the past five academic years;

  (2) what is the average time taken to bring court proceedings against parents whose children play truant from school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department does not collect statistics on court proceedings related to truancy.

  Itinerants (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are taken to ensure that children of school age living in vehicles attached to the convoy of itinerants currently in the vicinity of Stonehenge are educated in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Education Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is the duty of parents to ensure that their children of compulsory school age receive efficient full-time education suited to their age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs they may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. It is for local education authorities to ensure that the parents of any children of compulsory school age in their area are performing this duty.

  Children (Statistics)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures for the number of children in England(a) in care, (b) in psychiatric units and (c) in residential schools for non-attendance at school; and if he will give the overall costs and costs per week per child for each case.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that not all the figures requested are available; the available information is as follows.

  At 31 March 1986, it is estimated that there were 66,700 children in care of local authorities in England.

  In 1985–86, the total expenditure on children in care was £406 million, an average cost of £144 per child per week (provisional figure). Expenditure on some items, including administration and field work, cannot be separately identified for children in care and is not included here. Children on whom little or no expenditure has been incurred (for example children in care living at home) have been excluded in calculating the average cost.

  There were 500 children aged under 16 years resident in NHS mental illness hospitals and units in England at 31 December 1986.

  It is estimated that there were 1,900 children in care for non-attendance at school under section 1(2)(e) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 at 31 March 1986. It is not known how many of these children are in residential schools.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average payment of regional selective assistance in(a) development areas and (b) intermediate areas under (i) the old system of grants and (ii) the new system.
  731
  Mr. Atkins
  The average payment of regional selective assistance by my Department per completed project where the offer was made in the period 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1988, when the revised regional development grant scheme was terminated, was £58,862 in development areas and £33,359 in intermediate areas. There have not yet been any payments to projects which have received offers since 1 April 1988. Regional selective assistance has been interpreted as covering project and training grants.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the average payment per job for regional selective assistance in(a) development areas and (b) intermediate areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  The average payment per job by my Department for regional selective assistance on completed cases where the offer was made in the period 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1988 was £2,710 in development areas and £2,099 in intermediate areas. Regional selective assistance has been interpreted as covering project and training grants.

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the likely impact on industry in Yorkshire of an extension of operating hours at Leeds-Bradford airport.

  Mr. Atkins
  Both the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce and the Yorkshire region of the Confederation of British Industry have recently supported the case for extension of operating hours at the airport. I see no reason to doubt that an extension would be of benefit to industry in the region.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the likely impact on industry in Yorkshire and Humberside region of a high speed rail link through the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Consideration of high-speed rail links through the Channel tunnel from regional centres is still at an early stage. My Department keeps closely in touch with British Rail and business nationally and regionally over the way services can be developed once the tunnel is open in 1993, in order to maximise the benefits to the business community.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the operation of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  The Prime Minister
  I will be discussing a number of aspects of monetary co-operation with my European colleagues at the European Council meeting to be held in Hanover on 27–28 June, but the Government's position on the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is well known.

  Security Services (Employment Policy)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the security services are an equal opportunity employer; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The legislation governing equal opportunities recognises the need for exceptions in relation to members of the armed forces and the safeguarding of national security.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the take-up of certificated and standard housing benefit separately in 1985, showing in each case(a) the total likely to be entitled to benefit, (b) the proportion receiving benefit, (c) the numbers not receiving benefit, (d) estimated amount of benefit unclaimed, and (e) the average weekly amount unclaimed, broken down into pensioners, sick and disabled, families with children, and one-parent families.

  Mr. Portillo
  We expect to publish housing benefit take-up estimates based on the 1985 family expenditure survey by the end of the year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of senior citizens who have lost(a) some and (b) all of their housing benefit as a result of changes in regulations implemented in April 1988 by region for (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Patient Information Systems
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the extent to which computerised patient information systems and inter-hospital information systems have assisted development of the desired service cost indicators; and where such systems have been implemented.

  Mr. Newton
  All district health authorities have systems for processing the cost and activity data required to derive specialty costs, the major components of which will be drawn from computerised patient information systems.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much would be saved if child benefit were given in full up to £100 a week gross earnings, and phased out between £100 and £140 gross earnings for one child and £100 and £180 gross earnings for two children, if no payment were made for more than two children.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The precise savings from such a measure would depend on the exact nature of the scheme adopted. However, assuming that families who lose child
  733
  benefit would be compensated, as appropriate, through income support and housing benefit, and also through family credit (via the addition of £7·25 per week to the child credits), the estimated net saving, in a full year at 1988–89 prices and benefit levels, would be of the order of £2·7 billion.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish a table showing the value of income support, including premiums where appropriate, for(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a couple over the age of 18 years, (d) a couple with two children aged under 11 years and (e) a one-parent family with one child under 11 years of age as a proportion of average net earnings for all males and all manual males.

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

  Income support benefit rates—as percentages of average earnings (11 April 1988)

  Recipients under pension age

  1Per cent.

  2Per cent.

  Single person

  Aged 16–17

  11·1

  13·3

  Aged 18–24

  15·0

  17·8

  Aged 25 and over

  19·2

  22·8

  Married couple

  28·4

  33·5

  Married couple plus 2 children

  37·3

  43·4

  One parent family with one child (under 11)

  Aged 16–17

  21·2

  24·9

  Aged 18 and over

  28·7

  33·6

  1 Average net earnings: All males.

  2 Average net earnings: All manual male workers.

  Notes:

  1. Net average earnings are taken to be provisional gross average earnings less tax and national insurance contributions at the non-contracted out rate, plus child benefit where appropriate.

  2. The calculations for one parent families incorporate the additional personal tax allowance in respect of a one parent family.

  Erith and District Hospital
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received during the past six months on the future of Erith and district hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  One letter has been received from a member of the public.

  1991 Census
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his proposals for the 1991 census are on schedule.

  Mrs. Currie
  Yes.

  Orthotists and Prosthetists
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received representations from the Orthotists and Prosthetists Training and Education Committee, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and other organisations on the need to increase the number of trained orthotists in England and Wales; if he has received representations of the best methods for training such professional staff; and if he will make a statement.
  734
  Mr. Scott
  No representations have been received on this subject. The Orthotists and Prosthetists Training Council is currently considering future training needs for orthotists.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his best estimate of the anticipated shortfall in the number of trained prosthetists in England and Wales; what action is being taken on behalf of his Department in(a) the short term and (b) the long term to overcome the shortfall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Orthotic and Prosthetic Training and Education Council is currently considering the future training needs of prosthetists, in consultation with the Disablement Services Authority, which is concerned with prosthetic services in England.

  Lost or Stolen Payments
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what, on average, is the waiting time by region for a claimant reporting a payment lost or stolen to be informed of the outcome of inquiries.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the period laid down in his Department's guidelines for dealing with a claimant who reports that a payment is lost or stolen and the claimant being told of the result in investigations; and whether he will publish the guidelines in the Official Report.

  Mr. Portillo
  The administrative procedures followed when a claimant reports a loss of benefit vary according to the benefit concerned, the method of payment and the circumstances of the loss.

  Itinerants (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total amount of benefits currently being paid by his Department to claimants who are living in vehicles attached to the convoy of itinerants currently in the Stonehenge area of Wiltshire; what steps. are taken by his Department to ensure that no benefits are paid in respect of fraudulent claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A total of £6,383·57 has been paid in benefit to claimants who were part of the convoy in the Stonehenge area of Wiltshire. All income support claimants are required to produce evidence of identity and all statements are subject to verification.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for 1979 and for the latest available year the total figures showing the change in the number of beds in the areas covered by the following health authorities: North West Thames, South West Thames, North East Thames, South East Thames, Basingstoke, Winchester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, Wycombe, East Berkshire, West Berkshire and Oxfordshire; and if he will also give the totals for acute bed changes.
  735
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 16 June 1988]The available information is given in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds

  All Specialties

  Acute Specialties

  Region/District Health Authority

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  1979

  1986

  Percentage change

  North West Thames1

  27,904·5

  22,904·7

  -17·9

  11,287·9

  8,602·3

  -23·8

  North East Thames1

  29,442·8

  25,982·0

  -11·8

  13,500·6

  11,732·2

  -13·1

  South East Thames1

  28,407·9

  23,095·6

  -18·7

  12,082·8

  10,096·8

  -16·4

  South West Thames1

  26,242·0

  21,141·4

  -19·4

  8,347·5

  6,831·6

  -18·2

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  1,633·7

  1,414·9

  -13·4

  487·8

  501·3

  2·8

  Winchester

  920·9

  842·8

  -8·5

  413·1

  376·3

  -8·9

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  3,057·5

  2,656·6

  -13·1

  1,142·2

  1,088·2

  -4·7

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  3,112·4

  2,859·6

  -8·1

  1,369·7

  1,315·4

  -4·0

  Isle of Wight

  946·0

  683·8

  -27·7

  310·6

  298·0

  -4·1

  Milton Keynes2

  —

  470·3

  —

  —

  273·5

  —

  Ayle1bury Vale

  1,872·1

  1,421·6

  —

  628·6

  572·7

  —

  Wycombe

  777·7

  739·9

  -4·9

  474·6

  432·8

  -8·8

  East Berkshire

  1,773·3

  1,537·1

  -13·3

  948·5

  771·5

  -18·7

  West Berkshire

  2,987·4

  2,335·6

  -21·8

  1,029·3

  916·3

  -11·0

  Oxfordshire

  3,288·4

  2,951·0

  -10·3

  1,649·8

  1,624·8

  -1·5

  1 Data for 1979 and 1986 is not comparable due to NHS restructuring in April 1982

  2 Milton Keynes is included in Aylesbury Vale for 1979

  Patients (Expenditure)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the average annual expenditure per patient in 1986–87 by(a) the Northern regional health authority and (b) Sunderland district health authority.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 24 March 1988]For patient treatment costing purposes all hospitals are classified into a series of standard types which reflect the principal use to which their beds are allocated and an overall average cost or expenditure per patient is thus not determined.

  In terms of 1986–87 per capita expenditure (that is, total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services, etc. per head of resident population) the figure for Sunderland health authority (£206) is typical of the overall average for all sixteen district health authorities within the northern region (£208).

  Smokeless Tobacco Products
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will detail the scientific and research evidence which has been produced to him in support of the proposed ban on all smokeless tobacco products;

  (2) on what statistical scientific and analytical information his Department has based its proposed ban on all smokeless tobacco products.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 march 1988, c. 153–54]A number of references were omitted from the list placed in the Library. A revised list has been placed in the Library. The Government's proposals rest on the evidence listed and the conclusions based on it of the committee on carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment, those of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health, the report of the United States Surgeon General of April 1986 on evidence of links between smokeless tobacco products and oral cancer, the findings set out in the International Agency on Research into Cancer's report on evaluation of carcinogenetic risks to humans (volume 37)736
  and the views of a WHO group of experts meeting in June 1987. A press release summarising their views has also been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Contracts (Regional Policy)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is given to regional policy implications when contracts are placed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As I said to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 10 November 1987, at column 158, it is our policy to place equipment orders, wherever practicable, by competitive tendering. This policy has brought significant benefit to the defence budget and to the taxpayer and has promoted the health and efficiency of the defence industry. Where appropriate, however, we do take into account wider, relevant factors, including local employment levels.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to state how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) woman and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at 1 May 1988 the number of women industrial and non-industrial employees was 40,800 (28·6 per cent.). As there are some 430 different non-industrial grades within the MOD the following breakdown relates to stated grades and equivalents: grades 7 and above, 135 (2·8 per cent.), SEO/HEO, 1,452 (7·1 per cent.), EO, 4,141 (16·5 per cent.), AO and below 24,791 (65·2 per cent.), industrial grades 10,281 (19 per cent.). In common with what is happening in other Government Departments, the voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of MOD staff is being conducted in six phases. The results of the three phases completed were published in December 1987 by the Cabinet Office. The figures from the first three phases show that the number of respondents from the ethnic minorities
  737
  employed in the MOD was as follows: grade 7 and above 31 (1 per cent.), SEO/HEO and equivalent 91 (0·9 per cent.), EO and equivalents 148 (1·2 per cent.), AO/AA and equivalents 598 (2·9 per cent.). The overall figure was 868 (1·9 per cent). No figures are available yet for industrial staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to encourage more applicants from the ethnic minorities: and when and with what results and by which sections within his Department such positive action was taken.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The MOD has implemented a programme of positive action to encourage more applicants from the ethnic minorities. The actions already taken include advertising in the ethnic press, featuring ethnic minorities in new recruitment brochures, sponsoring students under the Windsor fellowship scheme, and participating in a scheme to provide training for potential executive officer recruits. Further actions are being given consideration.

  The actions are primarily being undertaken by MOD recruitment authorities serving units located in areas with a high ethnic minority working population. It is too early to say whether this programme of positive action has had an effect on the number of ethnic minorities applying for posts in the MOD.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts he has taken to increase the number of part-time posts in his Department and with what results; and how many and what percentage of such part-time posts are occupied by women and by people form ethnic minorities, respectively.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As at I May 1988 there were 3,849 part-time posts in the MOD. Of these 3,545 (92 per cent.) are occupied by women. Figures for ethnic minorities in part-time posts are not available. The MOD actively encourages part-time working and job-sharing. As part of the MOD equal opportunities plan, instructions on part-time working have been issued within the Department, and job-sharing trials are being conducted in a number of local areas.

  Submarines
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will now make a statement on the disposal of the Dreadnought submarine;

  (2) whether he has made a decision on the disposal of Polaris submarines once they are decommissioned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the hon. Member on 28 January 1988, at column 307.

  Persian Gulf (Naval Co-operation)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for co-operation between the Royal Navy and other Western navies in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Following discussions held in the framework of the WEU between the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, the three Governments have agreed to integrate their mine countermeasures forces 738
  operating in the Gulf with effect from 1 July. The three Royal Navy, one Belgian and one Dutch MCM Vs will operate as a joint force, with logistic support provided by RN or RFA vessels. RN destroyers or frigates of the Armilla Patrol will provide any necessary protection for mine countermeasures operations. Operational tasking will be co-ordinated from the headquarters of the RN's commander-in-chief fleet at Northwood, although in the case of the Belgians and Dutch ultimate command over their own ships will be retained by their respective national naval authorities. The British commander of the integrated flotilla will be assisted by a staff officer provided alternately by the Belgian and Dutch navies. The joint operation has been designated Calendar after the world war II code name for the successful tri-national mine clearance of the Scheldt estuary in 1944–45.

  Overall, the United Kingdom remains committed to close co-ordination with other Western navies also working to preserve international freedom of navigation in Gulf waters, and the arrangements for co-operation between the Royal Navy and other Western navies in the Gulf remain in other respects unchanged.

ENVIRONMENT

  Stud Farms (Rates)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount was collected in rates from stud farms and other horse breeding establishments in each of the last two years; if he has any estimate of the amount due in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on rateable values and rates paid by stud farms is not available centrally. We have announced that an exemption from rates for these buildings which are occupied together with agricultural land or buildings and which are below a specified size threshold, will be provided for by Government amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill. It is envisaged that this provision will result in the great majority of those that keep one or two horses for their own enjoyment or for breeding on a small scale being exempt.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the continuing delay in the purchase by Mr. W. B. Hamond of his home at 12b Mount Adon park, London SE22 ODT from Southwark borough council.

  Mrs. Roe
  I am most concerned about the continuing delay in this case, which Southwark says is due to a shortage of valuers. I understand that a section 125 offer notice is expected to be served in early July.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the reasons for the delay in the purchase by Mrs. R. Newton of her home at 10 Denesmead, Herne Hill, London SE24 from Southwark borough council.

  Mrs. Roe
  I understand that industrial action has caused a delay in the dispatch of the draft lease. The council says that it expects to dispatch it next month.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his latest estimate of the numbers of single homeless persons in London.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 22 June.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the extra £24·1 million to be made available to local authorities to combat homelessness constitutes new expenditure; from which Vote it will be financed; to which authorities, and based upon what criteria, these moneys will be paid; how much each receiving authority will receive; what guidelines will be given to authorities about how they may spend these moneys; and what restrictions will be placed upon its use.

  Mrs. Roe
  The extra money is not voted expenditure. It forms part of the £141·7 million increase in this Department's cash limits arising from a local authority underspend in 1987–88. £21·1 million of the £24·1 million extra is to be targeted on authorities with the most severe homelessness pressures. Decisions on specific allocations have not yet been taken, but they will reflect numbers of homeless acceptances and in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Whilst it is our intention that these additional resources will be used to alleviate homelessness, it will be for the local authorities to make the final decision on the use of individual allocations.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appointments have been made to the National Rivers Authority to date, stating positions and salary levels.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No appointments will be made to the National Rivers Authority until it has been established by the main water privatisation legislation, which we hope to introduce next Session. As has already been announced, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell has been appointed chairman of the National Rivers Authority advisory committee, which will advise Ministers on the reorganisation of the water authorities needed to prepare for the creation of a separate NRA. The committee will be assisted by a team of civil servants and consultants under a grade 3 civil servant.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the result of his consultation exercise on waste regulation and disposal.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We expect to make an announcement very soon.

  Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to secure 740
  better compliance with the convention on the international trade in endangered species by signatory nations; and whether he will make proposals for the strengthening and more effective enforcement of the convention.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom vigorously supports the convention and, together with our partners in the European Community, implements the provisions of the convention through EC regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83.

  We shall be considering with our European partners whether it would be appropriate to submit any proposals for securing better compliance with the convention to the next meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention to be held in October 1989.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (Appeals)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the arrangements for appealing against the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department and the Welsh Office have written to a wide range of interested parties inviting comments on a consultation paper about the arrangements for appealing against the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal in connection with the operation of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I am arranging for copies of the paper to be placed in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes any concessions concerning the uniform business rate for charity shops.

  Mr. Howard
  We are currently considering representations on this matter which have been received during proceedings on the Local Government Finance Bill in another place.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 16 June,Official Report, column 248–49, when he expects to have the necessary information to estimate the effect of exempt individuals including student nurses, on the likely levels of central grant and community charge for particular areas; and how often that information will be updated.

  Mr. Howard
  It will be necessary to have this information in good time for the introduction of the community charge in England and Wales on 1 April 1990, and to update it each year thereafter.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an updated version of figures K1 and K3 on pages 130 and 132 of Cmnd. 9714, using the most recent available statistics.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 June 1988]An updated version of figure K3 is provided in the table. Data to update figure K1 are not readily available and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.
  741

  Tax revenues from the main local taxes as percentage of total tax revenues of local governments (selected countries 1985)

  Taxes on

  Income and profits

  Payroll

  Property

  General consumption

  Specific goods and services

  Taxes on use

  Other

  Federal Countries1

  Australia

  —

  —

  95·9

  —

  —

  4·1

  —

  Austria

  39·4

  11·0

  10·1

  22·7

  10·7

  1·5

  4·5

  Canada

  —

  —

  84·7

  —

  —

  1·2

  14·0

  Federal Republic of Germany

  80·6

  —

  18·4

  —

  0·4

  0·4

  0·2

  Switzerland

  87·1

  —

  12·6

  —

  0·2

  0·1

  —

  United States of America

  5·9

  —

  74·2

  10·9

  4·7

  4·3

  —

  Unitary Countries

  Belgium

  78·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15·3

  5·9

  Denmark

  93·4

  —

  6·4

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  Finland

  99·0

  —

  0·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  France

  16·0

  —

  32·6

  —

  3·3

  6·4

  41·7

  Greece

  14·5

  —

  9·0

  2·4

  24·5

  6·9

  42·6

  Ireland

  —

  —

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Japan

  58·0

  —

  23·7

  —

  12·4

  4·8

  1·0

  Italy

  66·7

  —

  —

  —

  10·2

  0·3

  22·7

  Luxembourg

  83·0

  —

  4·2

  7·0

  0·3

  0·3

  4·7

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  75·4

  —

  1·1

  23·5

  —

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  93·0

  —

  1·9

  5·1

  —

  Norway

  91·4

  —

  5·5

  —

  —

  0·4

  2·7

  Portugal

  64·4

  —

  1·6

  9·3

  19·2

  4·4

  1·0

  Spain

  40·3

  —

  10·4

  26·0

  13·9

  —

  9·4

  Sweden

  99·7

  —

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·1

  —

  United Kingdom

  —

  —

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Excludes state, regional or provincial figures.

  sourse:OECD Revenue Statistics 1965–86.

  Merseyside Task Force
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the staffing levels of the Merseyside task force in every year since its inception.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]The following are the numbers:

  Year

  Number

  1981

  27

  1982

  27

  1983

  24

  1984

  39

  1985

  43

  1986

  51

  1987

  59

  1988

  59

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to appoint a new director of Merseyside task force;

  (2) what review is being carried out into the functions of the Merseyside task force; who is in charge of such a review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]An internal management review is being carried out by two of my officials. Decisions about future senior management of the task force will be taken after the review has been completed.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the future of the Merseyside task force; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]I have received representations that the task force has been valuable in promoting the regeneration of Merseyside and 742
  should remain in operation. I have indicated in my response that I intend to retain a strong office in Merseyside.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role is being planned for the Merseyside task force in the administration of the Government's policies for the inner cities.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 13 June, at column 21.

  Chimneys (Lining)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce grants for lining of chimneys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I have been asked to reply.

  The existing arrangements for renovation grants can include, at local authorities' discretion, works for the provision of chimney linings where such works form part of a wider package of renovation. I have no plans to introduce a specific grant for such provision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Spending
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current annual expenditure incurred by Her Majesty's Government on items relating to agriculture which were, prior to 1979, financed in part or whole by the European Economic Community; and if he will specify the nature of the functions involved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]All the costs of operations in the United Kingdom under the CAP
  743
  are ultimately borne by the United Kingdom, either directly or via our contribution to the EC budget. Estimates for United Kingdom expenditure in 1987–88 on CAP schemes which are fully or partly-funded by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) are given in the table.

  For the guarantee section, all the schemes listed were in operation prior to 1979, although Community reimbursement for intervention costs was reduced by 25 per cent. of the standard amounts fixed for this purpose only with effect from December 1985. Community funding for guarantee section expenditure was also reduced in 1987–88 by the introduction of a two-month delay in advances from the EAGGF. As a result of this, funding for expenditure in February and March 1988 was not received until the 1988–89 financial year.

  For the guidance section, most of the schemes listed, or their predecessors, were in operation prior to 1979. It would not be practical to provide figures which exclude all those schemes which did not exist before 1979.

  Total expenditure £ million

  EAGGF funding £ million

  Guarantee section

  Fully-funded by the EAGGF

  Internal subsidy schemes

  557

  413

  External trade measures

  521

  458

  Intervention purchasing (including EAGGF receipts for financing costs) (losses on sale fully reimbursed when produce sold)

  113

  208

  Partly-funded by the EAGGF Storage and technical costs of intervention

  96

  41

  Beef variable premium scheme

  136

  44

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  36

  19

  Guidance section

  Farm capital grants (part European Community-funded schemes)

  76

  114

  Support for agriculture in less-favoured areas (hill livestock compensatory amounts and additional benefits under capital grants schemes)

  131

  127

  Other

  13

  12

  1 Reimbursement for eligible expenditure incurred in 1986.

  Brewers Society Code of Practice
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from the National Licensed Victuallers Association to make the Brewers Society code of practice a legally binding document; what action he intends taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) on Tuesday 14 June 1988, at column 135.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he hopes to achieve at the next EC Council of Ministers meeting with regard to the fishing industry in general, and the inshore fleets in particular.
  744
  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 May 1988, c. 290]I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 23–24 June.

  The Council agreed an amendment to the marketing regulation which amongst other things provided for carry-over premiums to assist the private storage of herring and mackerel. This should facilitate smoother marketing of species of considerable importance to the United Kingdom industry. The Commission will also review the operation of the carry-over premium system for all species within the next two years. A widening of the margin of tolerance in the price at which herring and mackerel can be withdrawn from the market was agreed, which will also assist our industry. In addition, the new regulation limits the total amount of subsidy which can be paid in the tuna sector, where expenditure has been growing significantly.

  The Council also agreed an amendment to the technical conservative regulation which reduces the minimum landing size of nephrops in the Irish sea and the seas of western Scotland to acceptable levels. The Council endorsed the requests of the United Kingdom and France for further scientific work to be undertaken before any action is taken to revise the technical conservation measures in respect of nephrops in the North sea and the Bay of Biscay. I again drew the Council's attention to the problem of the changing migratory pattern of western mackerel and warned that we may wish to return to the Council later to request flexibility in the fishing across the 4°W line should this prove to be necessary.

  The Council had a first round of discussions on amendments to the control regulation which would facilitate better enforcement in the case of vessels landing in a member state other than its flag state. I explained the need for urgent action and the Council agreed to reach an early decision on this question. I pressed the Commission to make proposals as soon as possible, on the basis of the evidence we have given it, to increase the precautionary TACs for Channel cod and plaice, and the Commission undertook to consider this request urgently. This was a useful Council meeting in which progress was made on a number of issues of importance to the United Kingdom fishing industry.

  Radioactive Contamination
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available in the form of a map the figures for milk and sheepmeat tests for caesium 137 included in "Radionuclide Levels in Food, Animals, and Agricultural Products 1987," for the areas of Clwyd and Gwynedd only, showing as accurately as possible the sampling sites.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The document contains over 160,000 milk and sheepmeat results for Gwynedd and Clwyd, and the cost of mapping in the form requested would be disproportionate.

ENERGY

  B205 Corridor (Decontamination)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will seek to have placed in the Library copies of the British Nuclear Fuels plc video recordings of
  745
  aspects of the B205 corridor incident clean-up and decontamination operations of about June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that from time to time video recordings are taken to assist in the planning of, and briefing for, engineering work. Although the cassettes used for these recordings are reused as a matter of course, some recordings presently remain of the—205 corridor work of June-July 1987. As it is not BNFL's normal practice to issue these recordings, I shall ask its chairman to write to the hon. Member to arrange a suitably convenient time for viewing.

  Sacked Miners
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has concerning the number of miners in the north-east area of British Coal who are not yet re-employed, having lost their jobs during the miners' strike.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Questions on the dismissal and re-employment of mineworkers are matters for the management of the British Coal Corporation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to

  Mean wait in days for all specialists except obstetrics, mental illness and mental handicap by health board of treatment—1975 to 1986

  Health board of treatment

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  104

  103

  107

  84

  91

  99

  93

  77

  99

  91

  93

  85

  Ayrshire and Arran

  93

  83

  77

  81

  90

  89

  82

  90

  104

  103

  92

  80

  Borders

  103

  81

  79

  83

  87

  72

  83

  59

  58

  54

  52

  52

  Dumfries and Galloway

  112

  109

  102

  101

  95

  122

  94

  90

  138

  116

  101

  95

  Fife

  99

  96

  89

  77

  89

  83

  95

  67

  133

  112

  101

  95

  Forth Valley

  82

  98

  110

  88

  105

  87

  82

  65

  78

  71

  60

  55

  Grampian

  70

  66

  65

  61

  90

  91

  86

  69

  132

  102

  83

  78

  Greater Glasgow

  64

  71

  67

  64

  74

  65

  63

  60

  105

  79

  66

  66

  Highland

  63

  58

  51

  47

  48

  46

  49

  54

  57

  61

  63

  71

  Lanarkshire

  93

  81

  73

  68

  76

  69

  64

  66

  77

  56

  51

  46

  Lothian

  67

  71

  71

  61

  83

  67

  59

  58

  81

  67

  61

  65

  Orkney

  11

  28

  175

  18

  22

  22

  18

  21

  17

  18

  28

  18

  Shetland

  61

  64

  73

  89

  90

  110

  112

  67

  67

  51

  56

  44

  Tayside

  70

  71

  79

  66

  71

  67

  74

  69

  92

  86

  86

  87

  Western Isles

  45

  39

  34

  35

  45

  48

  45

  47

  53

  40

  41

  51

  Scotland

  75

  77

  75

  67

  80

  73

  71

  65

  95

  80

  72

  71

  1 This mean is based on five cases.

  Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Further Education
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the future of the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Further Education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In the Government's view the 40-strong statutory committee has proved a cumbersome and ineffective forum for negotiating the pay and conditions of academic staff in the local authority further education colleges and in the centrally-funded colleges.

  In large measure this seems to be because the two sectors have different funding sources, the staff have different conditions of service and the pressures facing management are different. Over the last six years management and staff sides have done their best to
  746
  fund a Government-sponsored seismological survey using the latest available techniques in order to establish the oil and gas potential around the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no current plans to fund such a survey.

SCOTLAND

  Patients (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board for each year since 1970 the mean in-patient and out-patient waiting time and two standard deviations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting times is available for health boards from 1975—the first full year of boards' operation. The mean waiting times for in-patient treatment are given in the table. They refer to heterogeneous groups of specialties, within each of which the distribution of waiting times is not symmetrical. In these circumstances, an overall standard deviation is not meaningful. The sharp increases in 1979 and 1983 reflect industrial action in the NHS. Mean waiting times for out-patients are not available.

  establish the committee as an effective forum for negotiation, but progress has been disappointing. Moreover, from time to time in recent years we have received representations from both management and staff interests about the unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangements.

  In the last two negotiation rounds the differing interests of the two sectors have been recognised by both management and staff interests with the creation of two separate negotiating groups. The 1987 negotiations resulted in two separate packages which reflected the differing priorities of the two sectors. In the 1988 negotiations a settlement has just been reached for the further education, but not for the centrally-funded, sector, and the expectation must be that in due course there will again be a different outcome affecting pay and conditions in the two sectors.
  747
  In the light of this evidence of the difficulties inherent in working within the present SJNC(FE), I intend taking the first legislative opportunity to abolish the committee. I do not wish to reach a conclusion at the present time on the precise form of any replacement negotiating machinery, as this is a matter on which the interests concerned in the two sectors will themselves have views.

  My officials stand ready to assist the various parties in devising alternative arrangements which better reflect the needs of management and staff at all levels in the two sectors.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which regional council areas service men are exempt from requirements to register for the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  In general, adult United Kingdom service personnel and their families who are solely or mainly resident in the area of a local authority will require to register for and pay the personal community charge in the normal manner. The position of those United Kingdom service personnel in Scotland who are exceptionally mobile and for whom individual registration for the personal community charge would be impracticable is the subject of continuing discussion between the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence. These arrangements will not apply to visiting forces which, in fulfilment of the United Kingdom's international treaty obligations, will be exempt from personal community charge liability. Provisions covering the position of visiting forces are contained in the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the United States Government over registration and payment of community charge by United States service men stationed in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  None. The Ministry of Defence is the principal point of contact between Her Majesty's Government and the United States forces stationed in the United Kingdom. That Department is in regular contact with the United States authorities on a wide range of matters, including the implications for visiting forces of the introduction of the community charge.

  Leukaemia (Rosyth)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to inquire into the link between leukaemia and radiation in the Rosyth area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has completed consideration of the incidence of leukaemia occurring in young people near Dounreay and has published its report, copies of which are in the Library. We have referred to COMARE information on the incidence of leukaemia throughout Scotland, including incidence in the vicinity of Rosyth. We will continue to be guided by the committee on any further work which is necessary in relation to specific Scottish sites.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gallowayand 748
  Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) last met officials of the East Kilbride development corporation; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  I last met officials of the East Kilbride development corporation on Tuesday 7 June, when I had the pleasure of announcing the establishment in the new town of the Motorola Semiconductor Company's European design centre. We discussed the successful conclusion of Motorola's plans to bring to East Kilbride the full range of its manufacturing, assembly, test and design operations and to create the largest centre of its type in Europe.

  Schools (Staffing Review)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the outcome of his Department's review of staffing standards in Scottish schools will be available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A review of the staffing needs of secondary, primary and special schools has been completed and I shall be issuing today for consultation new guidance on staffing standards based on its outcome. This will replace existing standards, which date from the mid-1970s. The new standards are based on existing and immediately foreseeable demands on teachers' time. They reflect the weight of classroom duties, but also take into account the need for specialist teachers, management time required to service school boards and for other purposes, and the importance of adequate provision for small primary schools and for pupils from eithnic minorities and from deprived backgrounds. They should also give authorities and head teachers more flexibility in the disposition of their staff resources than hitherto.

  The standards offer a framework for the staff complements needed to implement current educational policies, and they are commended as an indicative guide to staffing levels. I shall be monitoring the effect of their application on schools from 1989–90, and as changes occur in the running of schools, for example, through the progressive delegation of financial and managerial responsibility to school level, I shall be ready to review the form of guidance on staffing for the longer term.

  Application of the revised standards would have increased by about 2,700 the teacher numbers taken directly into account within the RSG settlement covering 1988–89. Financial provision for education within this year's settlement included an unallocated margin pending completion of the review of staffing standards. The new standards will be used as the basis of provision for the cost of teachers' salaries within the revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90.

  Further Education (College Principals)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will establish a review into the further education negotiating machinery with a view to offering principals of further education colleges a negotiating right on the Scottish joint negotiating committee for teaching staff in further education, or its successor body.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 22 June 1988]I refer to the reply I gave today to a question from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) in which I announced my intention to abolish the SJNC(FE) at the
  749
  first legislative opportunity. i hope that the parties concerned in the local authority sector will discuss how best to represent the interests of the principals in discussing the form of replacement negotiating machinery.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Day Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average cost per day care place in Northern Ireland for each year from 1976–87 according to type of day centre.

  Type of establishment

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Old people's homes

  51·99

  58·90

  65·07

  78·38

  100·87

  111·19

  119·86

  126·75

  131·50

  142·39

  147·84

  Children's homes

  75·03

  80·21

  89·03

  117·15

  174·16

  204·08

  236·80

  270·47

  287·90

  277·62

  287·80

  Hostels for the mentally ill

  35·41

  39·37

  43·30

  45·17

  58·09

  63·74

  67·53

  74·51

  80·84

  87·76

  105·15

  Family group homes

  36·30

  47·67

  52·24

  78·06

  105·10

  103·15

  117·34

  133·59

  203·30

  226·22

  272·32

  Mental handicap hostels

  44·16

  47·81

  52·85

  67·68

  85·04

  96·40

  113·33

  147·32

  158·55

  171·18

  181·10

  Hostels for adolescents

  67·79

  84·89

  82·56

  103·44

  158·29

  146·57

  176·81

  187·32

  207·78

  228·59

  204·94

  Other residential accommodation

  34·33

  41·92

  30·32

  33·97

  32·22

  62·10

  71·32

  80·54

  96·58

  114·24

  112·40

  Hospital Patients
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state for Northern Ireland the average cost per in-patient day or case by hospital type from 1971–72 up to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Average cost per in-patient day

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Acute

  38·74

  48·35

  63·45

  71·25

  76·95

  79·41

  86·21

  92·36

  96·86

  Mainly acute

  30·16

  37·59

  48·60

  54·51

  60·02

  60·43

  65·46

  69·25

  72·68

  Partly acute

  28·59

  30·64

  40·23

  44·33

  48·07

  50·55

  54·26

  67·38

  62·73

  Sub-acute

  24·64

  28·40

  35·27

  39·28

  42·10

  44·42

  46·81

  47·34

  48·06

  Mainly long stay

  22·21

  26·56

  34·29

  36·98

  44·54

  49·39

  50·76

  61·01

  66·:>4

  Long stay

  16·85

  20·66

  27·55

  29·83

  32·46

  34·16

  36·35

  37·57

  40·12

  Maternity

  50·70

  49·94

  76·73

  88·05

  80·12

  84·28

  84·41

  90·27

  87·"2

  Psychiatric

  14·93

  18·19

  24·04

  26·50

  29·88

  31·39

  33·89

  35·55

  39·48

  Psychiatric (mental handicap)

  15·71

  18·75

  24·51

  27·23

  29·38

  31·00

  32·81

  33·79

  35·66

  Tuberculosis and chest

  31·05

  36·70

  47·29

  46·66

  61·90

  68·65

  71·30

  —

  —

  Other hospitals

  —

  35·86

  45·27

  50·05

  55·31

  58·09

  59·91

  63·06

  67·34

  Teaching hospitals

  47·95

  57·29

  74·73

  81·98

  88·99

  93·85

  98·95

  100·14

  110·42

  Personal Social Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a table showing for

  Gross expenditure on personal social services by main budget headings at 1986–87 price levels

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Residential accommodation

  23,491,265

  24,570,923

  26,983,698

  29,837,148

  30,708,419

  31,543,868

  32,019,937

  31,878,591

  32,217,445

  31,636,233

  Day care accommodation

  4,821,139

  5,738,420

  6,389,279

  7,117,841

  7,421,435

  8,101,376

  7,630,390

  8,008,679

  7,955,753

  7,976,386

  Special care/Mental handicap services

  8,230,800

  8,794,676

  9,132,603

  10,059,436

  10,093,157

  10,907,942

  12,473,100

  13,087,532

  13,545,494

  14,314,658

  Fieldwork services

  9,905,966

  11,211,447

  14,189,872

  16,128,842

  16,371,630

  17,109,456

  17,725,394

  17,794,490

  17,956,726

  18,545,470

  Home help services

  17,527,042

  17,531,547

  18,525,685

  18,109,760

  19,405,982

  19,411,458

  19,238,643

  18,922,634

  19,722,556

  18,845,131

  Meals service

  880,213

  892,447

  938,260

  960,885

  880,273

  785,882

  788,338

  799,139

  741,416

  684,940

  Other

  8,378,176

  11,050,411

  11,136,984

  12,723,627

  12,393,425

  13,319,216

  13,963,624

  13,846,139

  14,108,910

  12,780,311

  73,234,601

  79,789,871

  87,296,381

  94,937,539

  97,274,321

  101,179,198

  103,839,426

  104,337,204

  106,248,300

  104,783,129

  750
  Mr. Needham
  The information is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Residential Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state for residential care in the personal social services in Northern Ireland the average cost per resident for each year from 1976–87 by type of establishment.

  Mr. Needham
  The cost per resident week by type of establishment is shown in the table.

  Mr. Needham
  The average cost per in-patient day by hospital type for 1978–79 and subsequent years is shown in the following table. Costs for years prior to 1978–79 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Northern Ireland gross current expenditure at 1986–87 prices by programme budget in personal social services in each year since 1976–77.

  Mr. Needham
  Information requested for the years 1977–78 to 1986–87 is shown in the table. Figures for 1976–77 are not available in the format requested.

  Health Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a table showing for

  Gross expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services by main budget headings at 1986–87 price levels

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Hospital and Related Services

  347,154,334

  358,687,830

  369,682,307

  369,284,987

  381,432,344

  386,942,275

  394,707,830

  394,967,460

  389,229,391

  381,719,558

  Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Centres

  6,015,305

  6,788,044

  7,234,664

  7,599,770

  8,030,310

  8,382,775

  8,774,550

  8,842,585

  9,018,479

  9,181,949

  Health Clinics

  2,812,295

  2,026,380

  1,932,574

  1,682,917

  1,856,391

  1,870,116

  1,895,114

  1,832,673

  1,688,261

  1,662,833

  Health Visiting Services

  5,154,534

  5,497,733

  5,667,286

  5,999,904

  6,117,720

  6,434,529

  6,594,638

  6,835,716

  6,871,360

  7,114,662

  Home Nursing Services

  10,897,778

  11,422,085

  12,011,270

  13,158,212

  12,774,820

  13,047,350

  13,984,665

  14,510,956

  14,789,767

  15,417,330

  School Health Services

  3,287,055

  3,992,692

  4,127,793

  4,363,932

  4,460,866

  4,578,986

  4,563,391

  4,663,802

  4,569,733

  4,542,026

  Other

  4,625,369

  4,980,999

  4,948,863

  5,078,782

  5,301,486

  5,541,501

  5,940,520

  6,248,191

  6,457,285

  7,102,727

  32,792,336

  34,707,933

  35,922,450

  37,883,517

  38,541,593

  39,855,257

  41,752,878

  42,933,923

  43,394,885

  45,021,527

  NHS (Patients)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was, for acute services, the number of day cases, out-patient attendances and in-patient cases treated in Northern Ireland in each year from 1976–77

  Day and out-patient cases

  In-patient cases

  Year

  Day patient attendances

  Out patient attendances

  Expenditure as adjusted by:

  No. of patients treated

  Average (days) stay

  Expenditure as adjusted by:

  General inflation

  HCS inflation

  General inflation

  HCS inflation

  1976–77

  13,974

  1,126,252

  13,460,500

  14,463,990

  124,604

  11·34

  95,989,508

  103,145,597

  1977–78

  16,113

  1,143,499

  12,226,836

  13,780,409

  127,171

  11·41

  96,350,761

  108,593,334

  1978–79

  15,854

  1,187,471

  12,464,667

  14,190,831

  126,350

  11·54

  94,534,130

  107,625,731

  1979–80

  24,098

  1,220,861

  12,951,374

  14,299,252

  133,758

  11·01

  101,311,754

  111,855,495

  1980–81

  24,706

  1,291,836

  14,225,355

  14,548,733

  134,229

  10·92

  110,493,399

  113,005,191

  1981–82

  22,737

  1,307,681

  14,337,609

  14,896,106

  134,857

  10·86

  113,155,421

  117,563,194

  1982–83

  22,662

  1,345,017

  14,802,368

  15,486,124

  132,226

  10·85

  114,402,466

  119,686,981

  1983–84

  25,966

  1,439,633

  15,664,991

  16,321,411

  138,740

  10·72

  117,268,256

  122,182,221

  1984–85

  24,948

  1,486,116

  16,242,589

  16,709,847

  142,254

  10·30

  119,945,885

  123,396,420

  1985–86

  29,681

  1,541,986

  16,117,280

  16,700,638

  148,577

  9·83

  119,720,597

  124,053,830

  1986–87

  31,412

  1,552,628

  17,684,635

  17,684,635

  144,583

  9·95

  119,549,166

  119,549,166

  Maternity Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was, for maternity services in Northern Ireland, the number of in-patient cases, the expenditure after allowing for general inflation, the expenditure after allowing for hospital and community health service inflation, the number of out-patient attendances and the length of stay per patient for each year since 1976–77, together with the perinatal mortality rate.

  Mr. Needham
  The health and social services boards' accounts are not maintained in such a way as to permit the expenditure on maternity services to be separately identified. The statistical information requested is as follows:

  Maternity services in Northern Ireland

  In-patient cases

  Out-patient cases

  Length of stay

  Perinatal mortality cases

  1976

  33,270

  137,675

  6·6

  22·3

  1977

  32,884

  139,979

  6·7

  21·1

  1978

  34,183

  146,814

  6·5

  18·1

  1979

  37,358

  151,870

  6·3

  16·6

  1980

  37,674

  158,876

  6·1

  15·6

  1981

  36,221

  152,671

  6·1

  15·3

  1982

  35,103

  151,696

  6·2

  13·3

  752
  Northern Ireland gross current expenditure at 1986–87 prices by programme budget in hospital and community health services for each year since 1976–77.

  Mr. Needham
  Information requested for the years 1977–78 to 1986–87 is shown in the table. Figures for 1976–77 are not available in the format requested.

  together with the expenditure after allowing for general inflation, expenditure after allowing for hospital and community health service inflation and the average stay per patient.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  In-patient cases

  Out-patient cases

  Length of stay

  Perinatal mortality cases

  1983

  35,606

  163,385

  5·9

  13·1

  1984

  36,808

  170,489

  5·8

  10·8

  1985

  36,968

  169,735

  5·6

  11·1

  1986

  37,388

  173,208

  5·5

  19·5

  1 Provisional.

  Mentally Ill People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what, for the personal social services for the mentally ill in Northern Ireland, was the number of day centre places, expenditure after allowing for general inflation, expenditure after allowing for personal social services inflation and the number of residents in each year from 1976–77.

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

  Constitution (Referendum)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for a referendum on the constitutional position to be held in Northern Ireland.
  753
  Mr. Tom King
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Mental Handicap Hospitals
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of patients leaving mental handicap hospitals and units after a stay of five or more years in Northern Ireland and by area board.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Health Service
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of National Health Service community psychiatric nursing staff, mental illness, in Northern Ireland and each area board at 30 September in each of the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986; and what was the percentage change between 1983 and 1986.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  1. Private cars

  Total registrations in Northern Ireland

  ROI "personal imports

  per cent.

  ROI "dealer" imports

  per cent.

  May 1987

  5,047

  45

  0·89

  18

  0·35

  June 1987

  5,722

  53

  0·92

  38

  0·66

  July 1987

  4,091

  62

  1·51

  18

  0·43

  August 1987

  4,348

  52

  1·19

  16

  0·36

  September 1987

  4,600

  75

  1·63

  21

  0·45

  October 1987

  3,919

  95

  2·42

  17

  0·43

  November 1987

  2,810

  60

  2·13

  27

  0·96

  December 1987

  1,503

  39

  2·59

  10

  0·66

  January 1988

  6,715

  118

  1·75

  67

  0·99

  February 1988

  5,328

  121

  2·27

  95

  1·78

  March 1988

  5,644

  108

  1·91

  35

  0·62

  April 1988

  3,941

  152

  3·85

  22

  0·55

  2. Light goods vehicles—As type approval does not apply to light goods vehicles, no information is available on whether imports are "Personal" or "Dealer".

  Total Registrations in Northern Ireland

  ROI Imports

  Percentage

  May 1987

  360

  27

  7·50

  June 1987

  416

  24

  5·76

  July 1987

  317

  18

  5·67

  August 1987

  284

  27

  9·50

  September 1987

  312

  17

  5·44

  October 1987

  344

  29

  8·43

  November 1987

  327

  33

  10·09

  December 1987

  211

  33

  15·63

  January 1988

  513

  74

  14·42

  February 1988

  343

  67

  19·53

  March 1988

  375

  13

  3·46

  April 1988

  285

  13

  4·56

  3. Other Vehicles1

  Total Registration

  ROI Imports

  Percentage

  March 1988

  444

  51

  11·48

  April 1988

  352

  44

  12·50

  1 This information is available only from March 1988 onwards and does not distinguish between "Personal" and "Dealer" imports.

  754

  year1

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Northern Ireland

  1983

  22

  8

  10

  22

  62

  1984

  25

  9

  10

  20

  64

  1985

  33

  8

  13

  21

  75

  1986

  35

  8

  11

  25

  79

  Percentage change

  1983–

  59

  Nil

  10

  14

  27

  1 Information on the numbers of community psychiatric nurses is collected on an ad hoc basis and therefore it is not possible to give information as at 30 September in each year.

  Vehicle Imports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new(a) motorcars, (b) vans, and (c) other vehicles have (been brought into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many in each category have been listed as personal imports; how many have been imported for sale by the importer; and what percentage of total sales in each month in each category these imports represent.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 21 June 19881]The information requested is set out in the tables:

  Irish Language
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the role of Irish in the school curriculum has been discussed at meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 21 June 1988]The Intergovernmental Conference has discussed Irish language questions and education questions on a number of occasions, as reported in the joint statements issued after such meetings. The details of conference proceedings are confidential.

  Tolls
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a list of road, bridge and tunnel facilities in Northern Ireland for which tolls are levied, with a note for each entry of (a) the name and address of the responsible authority (b)whether it produces published accounts for that specific facility (c) which Minister is responsible for authorising changes in such tolls, and (d) on which (i)

  755
  public expenditure programme and (ii) class, vote and subhead, the toll revenue and associated expenditure is to be found.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 23 June 1988]There are no roads, bridges or tunnel facilities in the Northern Ireland public road system for which tolls are levied.

WALES

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department's ethnic monitoring exercise commenced; when he expects it to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 16 June 1988. A survey of the ethnic origin of staff in my Department commenced on 20 April 1988 and was concluded on 31 May. A 94 per cent. rate of return was achieved. The results of the survey are currently being analysed by the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister of the Civil Service).

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what positive action he has taken to remedy past inequalities in employment practices in his Department in compliance with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, respectively, other than those measures specified in his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West dated 27 May, at columns 397–8.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 27 May. Since my earlier reply agreement has been reached with the trade union side in my Department on equal opportunities framework papers covering monitoring of policies, training, promotion and job allocation.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has appointed an equal opportunities officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  An equal opportunities officer has been designated within my Department's personnel management division. The officer has responsibility for advising senior management on the application and monitoring of the Civil Service policy on non-discrimination. The officer also provides advice on the implementation of the programme of action on equal opportunities recommended by the joint review group of the Civil Service National Whitley council's joint personnel management committee.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many and what percentage of officers in each grade and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively;

  (2) what were the results of the survey recently completed to provide information on the ethnic origin of staff in his Department; and how many, and what percentage of staff in each unit or grade were found to be of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The details requested by the hon. and learned Gentleman for female staff in my Department 756
  are set out in the table. The information sought about staff from ethnic minorities is not available, since an ethnic monitoring staff-in-post survey of the Welsh Office has only very recently been completed and the results are currently being analysed by the Cabinet Office (Office of the Minister of the Civil Service).

  women

  Number

  per cent.

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  1·5

  3

  Grade 6

  11

  17

  Grade 7

  15

  13

  SEO

  14

  17

  HEO

  67

  34

  EO

  179·5

  50

  AO

  277

  67

  AA

  148·5

  61

  Typing and secretarial grades

  219·5

  100

  Other support grades

  44·5

  31

  Professional grades

  24

  16

  Industrials

  2

  2

  TOTAL

  1,003·5

  46

  Notes:

  1. All figures relate to current operational grades.

  2. As at 1 June 1988.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to improve equality of opportunity for women and for people from ethnic minorities in all grades of his Department, in connection with employment, training and promotion, respectively.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department, as an equal opportunities employer, is conducting a continuing policy of encouraging women and members of ethnic minorities to play their full part in its work. The matter is kept under review by a joint management-union working party. Specific issues currently under consideration include a feasibility study of day care facilities, training for women managers and efforts to build links with schools with significant numbers of children from ethnic minorities.

  Home Education
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has to how many children in Wales are educated at home(a) by their parents and (b) by local education authority tutors; and what is the cost per week per child.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information on children educated at home is not collected by the Department.

  Non-attendance at School
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the number of children in Wales(a) in care, (b) in psychiatric units and (c) in residential schools for non-attendance at school; and if he will give the overall costs and costs per week per child.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There were 3,481 children in care on 31 March 1987. The number of resident patients aged under 16, in mental illness hospitals and units, as at 5 April 1987, was 38. Information on expenditure in respect of children in mental illness hospitals and units is not
  757
  available centrally. Information is not collected centrally on residential schools for non-attendance at school. However, it is estimated that 84 children were in care under a care order for non-attendance at school. It is not known how many of these children were in residential schools. The provisional 1986–87 current expenditure by local authorities on children in care was £15·7 million and the average cost per child per week was £110.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of educating a child at(a) a state primary school and (b) a state secondary school in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The costs to local authorities of educating a child in Wales in 1986–87 were as follows:

  £ (out-turn)

  State primary schools

  909

  State secondary schools

  1,320

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many children educated in maintained schools in Wales passed Russian A-level in 1987; if he is satisfied with the quantity and standard of Russian teaching in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many children educated in maintained schools in Wales passed Italian A-level in 1987; if he is satisfied with the quantity and standard of Italian teaching in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many children educated in maintained schools in Wales passed Spanish A-level in 1987; if he is satisfied with the quantity and standard of Spanish teaching in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if he is satisfied with the quantity and standard of German teaching in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he is satisfied with the quantity and standard of French teaching in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The policy statement "Modern Languages in the School Curriculum" recognised recent improvements in the nature and provision of foreign language teaching. While levels of performance taken as a whole have improved, there is evidence that much higher standards can be achieved, especially in oral communication. Recent attention by LEAs in service training programmes, and the work of LEA advisers, will enhance the quality of foreign language teaching and will help raise standards of achievement. I hope to see, also, a greater diversity in the range of languages offered in schools.

  Implementation of the national curriculum will mean that all pupils up to the age of 16 in maintained secondary schools will in due course study a modern language, which will, in Wales, be in addition to Welsh.

  The numbers of pupils educated at maintained schools who passed Spanish, Italian and Russian at A-level in 1987 in Wales were 46, five and one respectively.

  Starter Homes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the rate of building of starter homes in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  758
  Mr. Grist
  Data are not collected on the number of starter homes built in Wales. I am satisfied, however, that the housebuilding industry is responding to the demand for all types of homes. In 1987 the private sector started 8,700 new homes in Wales, an increase of 23 per cent. on the previous year and the highest total since 1973.

  Tolls
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of road, bridge and tunnel facilities in Wales for which tolls are levied, with a note for each entry of(a) the name and address of the responsible authority, (b) whether it produces published accounts for that specific facility, (c) which Minister is responsible for authorising changes in such tolls, and (d) on which (i) public expenditure programme and (ii) class, vote and subhead, the toll revenue and associated expenditure is to be found.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 23 June 1988]There are two major tolled crossings in Wales—the Cleddau bridge and the Porthmadog Cob. Neither is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and toll revenue and associated expenditure do not appear in the roads public expenditure programme. The toll rate on the Porthmadog Cob is fixed in primary legislation. Changes in the tolls on the Cleddau bridge are not required to be authorised by the Secretary of State, though he has certain powers relating to such tolls. Accounts are published annually and the authorities responsible for these crossings are:

  Cleddau Bridge

  Dyfed County Council

  County Hall

  Carmarthen

  Dyfed SA31 1JP

  Porthmadog Cob

  The Rebecca Trust

  Y Dollborth

  Porthmadog

  Gwynedd

  Details of ownership and accounting arrangements for minor crossings and roads are not readily available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past four years the funding provided under the terms of the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984, as well as an estimate of the funds which will be available in the current year.

  Mr. Cope
  The Co-operative Development Agency's estimated funding for the 1988–89 financial year under the terms of the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984 has been approved at £240,000. The table shows for each of the past four years the funding provided under the terms of the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978, as amended by the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984.
  759

  Year

  Funding £'000s

  1 April 1984–31 March 1985

  200

  1 April 1985–31 March 1986

  200

  1 April 1986–31 March 1987

  235

  1 April 1987–31 March 1988

  200

  Also, under the terms of the Industrial Development Act 1982, £40,000 was made available in 1987–88 and £45,000 has been approved for 1988–89

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many filled places on the following programmes for each standard region, including Greater London, there were at the end of each month from February to May inclusive: community programme, enterprise allowance scheme, YTS, young workers' scheme, job release scheme, jobshare scheme, new job training scheme and jobstart allowance.

  Mr. Cope
  The information by standard region is as follows:

  (a) Community programme1

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  South East

  10,263

  10,104

  9,889

  9,624

  London

  14,117

  14,217

  14,259

  14,274

  South West

  14,576

  14,401

  14,120

  13,783

  West Midlands

  26,127

  25,643

  25,433

  25,038

  East Midlands and Eastern

  17,065

  16,894

  16,605

  16,340

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  26,030

  25,927

  25,561

  25,140

  North West

  36,279

  36,351

  36,036

  35,453

  Northern

  28,182

  28,277

  28,200

  28,055

  Wales

  19,816

  19,865

  19,668

  19,688

  Scotland

  30,971

  31,052

  31,344

  31,033

  1 Excluding Charities.

  (b) Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  London and South East

  21,915

  23,232

  22,968

  22,858

  South West

  9,944

  9,893

  9,857

  9,933

  West Midlands

  9,316

  9,229

  9,173

  9,029

  East Midlands and Eastern

  10,167

  9,001

  8,957

  9,116

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,025

  9,032

  8,951

  8,950

  North West

  14,193

  14,205

  14,073

  14,155

  Northern

  5,097

  5,152

  5,140

  5,197

  Wales

  5,810

  5,854

  5,851

  5,799

  Scotland

  8,643

  8,710

  8,603

  8,571

  (c) Youth Training Scheme2

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  South East

  42,250

  41,260

  40,570

  40,320

  London

  20,550

  20,220

  20,110

  20,180

  South West

  31,150

  30,280

  29,680

  29,590

  West Midlands

  46,570

  44,900

  44,200

  44,080

  East Midlands and Eastern

  46,430

  45,220

  44,640

  44,970

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  43,410

  42,270

  41,920

  42,500

  North West

  59,980

  58,370

  56,560

  56,660

  Northern

  28,570

  27,720

  27,090

  27,180

  Wales

  23,160

  22,510

  22,340

  22,600

  Scotland

  45,340

  44,520

  43,260

  43,300

  2 Adjusted figures to take account of late notification of young people leaving the scheme.

  760

  (d) The New Workers Scheme3

  February 1988

  March 1988

  South East

  725

  529

  London

  194

  194

  South West

  1,178

  e1,075

  West Midlands

  2,424

  2,338

  East Midlands and Eastern

  1,449

  1,053

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  e2,059

  e1,845

  North West

  4,099

  3,852

  Northern

  e1,748

  e1,548

  Wales

  1,860

  e1,697

  Scotland

  1,990

  1,739

  April 1988

  May 1988

  London and South East

  517

  384

  Wales and South West

  2,538

  2,358

  East Midlands/Eastern and West Midlands

  3,016

  2,743

  Yorkshire and Humberside and Northern

  3,071

  2,752

  North West

  3,408

  3,031

  Scotland

  1,524

  1,341

  3 The new workers scheme replaced the young workers scheme in April 1986. Figures are for employees being supported at specified time. Figures for February/March and April/May are shown separately due to a change in the way that the figures are collected.

  e = estimate

  (e) The Job Release Scheme

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  South East

  2,016

  1,874

  43,149

  42,977

  London

  930

  865

  —

  —

  South West

  1,632

  1,548

  1,384

  1,303

  West Midlands

  1,938

  1,834

  1,660

  53,277

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,930

  2,783

  1,780

  —

  Yorks and Humberside

  3,035

  2,891

  2,611

  2,496

  North West

  3,175

  3,025

  2,506

  2,600

  Northern

  788

  747

  910

  638

  Wales

  684

  652

  594

  559

  Scotland

  1,422

  1,319

  1,163

  1,089

  4 Figures are for London and the South East

  5 Figures are for the West Midlands, East Midlands and Eastern

  February 1988

  March 1988

  (f) Jobshare6

  South East

  22

  18

  London

  3

  2

  South West

  26

  25

  West Midlands

  47

  46

  East Midlands and Eastern

  74

  72

  Yorks and Humberside

  194

  189

  North West

  288

  257

  Northern

  58

  54

  Wales

  87

  90

  Scotland

  34

  30

  April 1988

  May 1988

  London and South East

  15

  16

  Wales and South West

  115

  111

  East Midlands/Eastern and West Midlands

  121

  111

  Yorks and Humberside and Northern

  234

  207

  North West

  263

  188

  Scotland

  31

  28

  6 Figures are for employees being supported at specified time and due to a change in the way that the figures are collected they are shown separately for February/March and April/May.

  761

  (g) The New Job Training Scheme7

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  South East

  2,849

  3,010

  3,056

  —

  London

  3,283

  3,547

  3,123

  —

  South West

  2,126

  2,398

  2,462

  —

  West Midlands

  3,051

  3,467

  3,183

  —

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,814

  2,833

  2,863

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,168

  4,329

  4,275

  —

  North West

  3,716

  4,097

  4,159

  —

  Northern

  2,097

  2,339

  2,590

  —

  Wales

  1,351

  1,390

  1,469

  —

  Scotland

  2,828

  3,025

  3,055

  —

  7 Figures for May are not yet available.

  (h) The Jobstart Allowance8

  February 1988

  March 1988

  April 1988

  May 1988

  London and

  South East

  173

  171

  164

  153

  South West

  114

  102

  92

  88

  West Midlands

  391

  367

  311

  305

  East Midlands and Eastern

  328

  276

  239

  216

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  399

  396

  342

  324

  North West

  741

  712

  599

  537

  Northern

  252

  253

  252

  248

  Wales

  246

  253

  213

  204

  Scotland

  344

  332

  363

  355

  8 The figures relate to the number of people actually in receipt of the allowance at a given date.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances an unemployed claimant receiving income support or unemployment benefit and studying in further education on a course of less than 21 hours per week can continue with that course work as an element within an employment training personal action plan.

  Mr. Cope
  Everyone joining employment training will follow an integrated programme of directed and practical training based on an agreed individual action plan. Employment training will build on trainees' previous attainments and experience, and an individual's action plan may include the completion of courses started before the trainee joined the programme that are relevant to the plan.

  YTS Bridging Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances 16 and 17-yearolds in receipt of the YTS bridging allowance will be able to pursue a part-time education course, similar to the 21-hour rule without losing the allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The YTS bridging allowance will be paid for a maximum of eight weeks in any 12-month period to young people who have lost a job or a previous YTS place. To be eligible for the allowance young people must apply for a YTS place, make themselves available for interviews when required and be prepared to start on a YTS course 762
  at any time. Subject to those conditions young people may, if they wish, pursue a part-time education course while receiving the allowance.

  Itinerants (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total amount of benefits currently being paid by his Department to claimants who are living in vehicles attached to the convoy of itinerants currently in the vicinity of Stonehenge; what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that no benefits are paid in respect of fraudulent claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department does not keep records which show the amount of benefit paid to special groups of claimants. My Department has over 800 officers engaged exclusively in the investigation of benefit fraud. They liaise with their counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Security to ensure that every suspicion of benefit fraud is investigated. Because of the nature of their travels, the itinerants gathering at Stonehenge are unlikely to be committing the most common sort of benefit fraud, which is working and signing. If they are drawing benefit, however, they may be infringing the benefit system by not being available for work. Availability for work is rigorously enforced by my Department through the availability questionnaire which I announced in the House on 1 December 1987. Instructions issued to officials in the south-west require them to apply the full test of availability to any unemployed person claiming benefit.

  YTS
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the projected numbers of YTS trainees on(a) year one and (b) year two for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 and what are the projected average lengths of stay.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's expenditure plans, published in January 1988, show projected entrants to YTS at 363,000 in 1989–90 and 358,000 in 1990–91. Assumptions which underpinned that forecast are that 207,000 trainees with a two-year entitlement would progress into a second year in 1989–90, and 195,000 such trainees would progress into a second year in 1990–91. Average length of stay for those with a two-year entitlement would be 72 weeks in 1989–90, and 73 weeks in 1990–91, while for those with a one-year entitlement average length of stay would be 42 weeks in 1989–90 and 43 weeks in 1990–91.

  The current public expenditure survey will cover the three years in question. The projections made last year are of course under review as part of this year's survey in the light of labour market trends, changes in legislation, and other factors.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he now has final figures for the number of entrants to YTS in 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Commission has released figures today which show that there were 419,635 starts to YTS in 1986–87. Cumulative figures at the end of each month were:
  763

  Number

  1986

  April

  22,826

  May

  37,738

  June

  128,225

  July

  190,786

  August

  244,557

  September

  332,928

  October

  356,181

  November

  371,877

  December

  379,849

  1987

  January

  396,055

  February

  407,198

  March

  419,635

  TOTAL FOR YEAR

  419,635

  These figures represent the actual numbers of scheme starts, including second and subsequent starts where trainees have transferred between schemes. It is estimated that the number of individuals entering YTS in 1986–87 was some 20 per cent. lower than the figures for starts in the table.

  These figures differ from those published during 1986–87 because they include notifications of starts which had not been received at the time the monthly statistics were announced.

  Wages Councils Agreements
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the estimated number of establishments and workers covered by wages council agreements, in 1987, in each region in Scotland and in each of the four cities: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen; and if he will show in that table the number of inspections, by visit and by other methods, carried out by the Wages Inspectorate in each area, and the rate of compliance with wages councils' rates in 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages Inspectorate statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions, of which Scotland is one. Those items requested for which separate figures are compiled for Scotland were provided in the reply given to the hon. Member on 4 March 1988, at columns 734–38.

  Minimum Wages
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of employers who have been informed by the Wages Inspectorate in Scotland that the maximum period for which arrears arising from under-payment of minimum rates can be claimed is 18 months; and if he will estimate the number of workers in Scotland affected by this information.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not the case that arrears can be claimed only for a period of 18 months. To the best of the inspectorate's knowledge, no such advice has been given.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about recent changes in the loan guarantee scheme.
  764
  Mr. Cope
  As one of the initiatives in the action for cities launch on 7 March the Government announced their intention to raise the guarantee level on the loan guarantee scheme loans from 70 to 85 per cent. for eligible borrowers in inner city task force areas. That initiative has now been brought into effect. Since the introduction this January of simplified arrangements for loans of up to £15,000, take up under the scheme has doubled to over 200 per month. Both those changes should assist small businesses to start up and grow.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Staff
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each standard planning region of England(a) the number of employees of his Department, (b) the amount spent on wages and salaries and (c) the proportion of total expenditure in each region by his Department which is represented by personnel costs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of employees in each economic planning region of England at 21 June was as follows:

  Region

  Northern

  444

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  689

  North West

  840

  East Midlands

  547

  West Midlands

  776

  East Anglia

  306

  South East

  2,146

  South West

  1,103

  London

  2,818

  The Department does not have a breakdown by former planning region of the amount spent on wages and salaries or of the proportion of total expenditure which personnel costs represents.

  Motorists (Green Card)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any plans to end the green card insurance requirement for British motorists travelling in EEC countries as a result of the Single European Act.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no requirement for motorists to have a green card when driving in other Community countries. Motor insurance policies issued in one member state already provide the cover required in law in each of the others. For convenience, United Kingdom insurers issue green cards to drivers who wish to extend the full cover provided by their domestic policies. This use of the green card does not correspond with its original purpose. To use some other form of certification as evidence of the extension of such cover would introduce an additional complication at a time when the aim is for freer movement between EC countries.

  Irish Road Traffic
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up a survey to identify the total amount of road traffic from the Republic of Ireland which passed through the United Kingdom on its way to the continent of Europe during a given period of time.
  765
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Road Traffic Law
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to complete his consideration of the recommendations of the North report on road traffic law.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 12 April, at column 79, we are pressing ahead with consideration of the recommendations of the North report. We will report to the House on our progress before the summer recess.

  A27 (Flyover)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a scale model of the road flyover at the Offington roundabout proposed in the consultant study of the A27 to enable constituents of the right hon. Member for Worthing attending the public exhibition to assess the impact of the proposed flyover on the local environment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultants' recommended route has been developed to a sufficient extent to show that it would be a practicable solution and to indicate the approximate height of a flyover at the Offington roundabout. It would not be possible to prepare an accurate scale model until the detailed design stage is reached.

  Tyre Treads
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he plans to discuss the issue of tyre tread depths with Governments of those countries enforcing a minimum tread depth of 1·6 mm or above; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the minimum statutory tyre tread depths in each country for which his Department has records.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have no plans to discuss tread depths with other Governments. In use requirements for tyres are a domestic matter which each country decides in the light of local conditions. The Department does not keep complete records of minimum statutory tread depths in other countries. I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for York, (Mr. Gregory) on 18 April, at columns 538–39. The latest informal information we have is as follows:

  European and other country tread depth standards

  Italy, West Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Belgium:

  1 mm over the full width

  France:

  1 mm in the principal grooves

  Luxembourg, Switzerland and Japan:

  1·6 mm over the full width

  United States of America:

  ⅙inch over the full width

  Austria:

  Motor cycles

  1 mm over the full width

  Passenger cars and vans up to 3,000 kg laden weight

  1·6 mm over the full width

  PSVs and goods vehicles

  2 mm over the full width

  766

  Netherlands: Passenger vehicles for up to 9 people (including driver)

  1 mm over the full width except the tyre shoulder

  Goods vehicles with a laden weight of up to 3,500 kgs and trailers

  Other goods vehicles and PSVs

  No tread depth, tyre must be suitable for use and have rubber over whole surface. Slight cuts in rubber are permissible.

  Portugal:

  1 mm over ¾of width.

  HGV Test Centres
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many firms have block bookings at the HGV test centre at Beverley.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Five firms have block booking arrangements at the Beverley HGV driving test centre.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport upon what principles block bookings at the Beverley HGV test centre are allocated.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At Beverley, and all other HGV driving test centres, block booking arrangements are made with full-time training organisations which have a regular demand for HGV tests, provided that a reasonable amount of testing capacity remains to accommodate individual applicants.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the waiting time for individual applications for tests at the Beverley HGV test centre for firms without block bookings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The forward booking date at Beverley HGV driving test centre is not kept separately for individual and block booked candidates. The forward booking date inclusive of both is currently 17 weeks. This is too long. We are urgently seeking ways to improve the situation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the commercial value for firms training for HGV licences of the value of block bookings at the Beverley HGV test centre.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No financial estimate has been made. The Department's policy is to provide block booking facilities at Beverley and other HGV driving test centres wherever possible.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why block bookings are granted to HGV licence training firms at the Beverley HGV training centre.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At all HGV driving test centres we provide block booking facilities so that firms can plan their HGV driver training programmes to known test dates. The extent to which block booking facilities can be made available is currently limited at Beverley by shortage of accommodation.

  M23 (Traffic Delays)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing on 20 June, whether he will take steps to ensure that the county council officials responsible for delaying the traffic on the M23 on 11 June to use a deflectograph machine are no longer employed on his Department's work; why it was considered necessary to undertake the work at short notice; what cost saving was achieved by employing the machine at that particular time; who owns the machine used; and what factors led to the conclusion that similar weather conditions were unlikely to prevail at a time when traffic was not heavy.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The county council is being asked for a report. I shall write to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the right hon.768
  Member for Worthing of 20 June, what information he has, in respect of the measurements of the road surface of the M23 on 11 June, as to when the police were first informed by the county council of its intention to carry out the work; what conclusions were reached as a result of the measurements; what action has been taken as a result of measuring the condition of the road; and when he expects a review by his Department of traffic flow maintenance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Surrey county council and the police first discussed the programme for the measurements on 26 April. The police were informed at 11.30 am on 10 June of the work to be done on the following day. The information obtained will take some weeks to analyse. It is needed to decide the structural treatment required during future major maintenance works. We are considering more generally what further steps might be taken to improve traffic flows in connection with maintenance works.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Tree Replanting: Assistance
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they have given to the effort of making good the damage to trees caused by the violent storms last October.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have provided a substantial programme of assistance to all types of landowners, in which the major element is special financial assistance for replacement planting from the Forestry Commission, the Countryside Commission, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's storm damage recovery scheme.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I also congratulate the Government on their admirable policy for dealing with the effects of the devastating storm. Is the Minister certain that all the people who were affected by that disaster are aware of the help they can receive in dealing with repairs?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched an action pack prepared by Task Force Trees containing valuable advice for small landowners, householders and others, on tree care and planting. Owners of larger areas of forest will probably go to the Forestry Commission for advice.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is it not the case that government help has been almost entirely directed towards replanting? There is a prior need for clearing up the damage on the ground. Many people, in the absence of assistance, have been unable to afford to do that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the introduction on 7th June of the extra financial aid for planting makes it easier to look at all of the costs. Levels of assistance from the Forestry Commission are already high and this extra level will assist forestry owners in achieving both clearance and replanting.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the royal parks have lost more than 5,000 trees and that the Prince of Wales appeal has raised £100,000 which will replace one-fifth of those trees? Will my noble friend say that the Government will supplement the clearing up grant with a matching replanting grant so that those parks, which mean so much to the nation, can soon recover their former beauty?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the department will do its best to ensure that the royal parks return to their former glory. However, it will take a considerable period of time.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister has emphasised how well the Forestry Commission and the committees which have been formed are dealing with the problem. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who is not present in the Chamber, and other woodland owners have said that despite Forestry Commission grants the clearing up expenses are very high, and some help in that matter would encourage people to get on with the job.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the general principle must be that clearance is the responsibility of the individual owner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister turn his attention for a moment to the problems of local authorities? Does he agree that those problems are of two kinds? First, there is the cost of clearing up on local authority land and how that will be met, particularly by authorities which have been rate-capped; and, secondly, there is the question of how to minimise the damage from any future disaster. Does the Minister agree that the privatisation programme makes it more difficult for local authorities to co-ordinate their emergency services on such occasions?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I cannot agree with the last point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made. The ratepayers have benefited from the assistance local authorities have received with costs under the Bellwin scheme, and the recent announcement of the restocking supplement recognises the additional costs faced by owners and local authorities.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, why must the responsibility for clearing up obviously rest with the individual owner, as the Minister has just said, whereas there can be assistance with replanting? That is by no means a self-evident proposition.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said earlier, the general principle must be that the owners of property should be able to look after it.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, it is all very well to say that that must be so. However, many of them do not have the money. It is all very well for royal parks. What about the wretched private owner with no royal park to rely on?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I must point out again the increased grant which the Forestry Commission will provide to help with replanting. Trees are blown over and replanted; that is all part of a cycle. We have contributed an extra £3½ million.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, we cannot replant until trees are cleared away.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any decision has been made on the proposals to give transport grants for taking the timber to markets in the north and west of the country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a transport subsidy would not be justified for two reasons. Its effect would be to reduce the extent of the loss against which a landowner could be insured. That is not the job of the Government. Secondly, the fact that prices naturally fall in a glut makes it more economic for purchasers to transport over longer distances. There is evidence that good-quality timber from the South-East of England is finding a ready market as far afield as the Grampian region.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister seemed to indicate that the cutting down and clearing of trees and restocking is all one operation. That is true in a regular forestry operation. However, blown timber is much more expensive to clear than clear felling.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said earlier. There is a principle involved; you either agree with it or you disagree with it.

Battersea Amusement Park: Traffic Control
11.12 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements will be made for traffic control and effective parking in connection with the new Battersea amusement park complex.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these are matters for the London Borough of Wandsworth as the relevant planning and highway authority.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Battersea project is an imaginative enterprise that should command support from all quarters? Bearing in mind that it is the intention to attract 4 million visitors and to provide work for 4,500 people, does the Minister not agree that some special treatment is required? Would the Minister care to tell the House, bearing in mind the damage to the environment that already affects residents and the volume of traffic in London, what special criteria he has in mind to guide Wandsworth in dealing with this exceptional problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on the assumption that the Department of Transport did not have any objections, clearly it is felt that the borough of Wandsworth is entirely competent to make decisions with regard to this question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that his last reply is rather surprising? For an ambitious project of this kind, which I think we all welcome, surely some thought must have been given
1050
to a traffic management scheme in view of the problems that exist at the moment in respect of both residential parking and congested routes? Should not the traffic management unit—now controlled, I was told the other day, by the Corporation of London—be concerned in this matter? The problems go far beyond Wandsworth. Can the Minister assure the House that if consideration has not already been given to that aspect, it will be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is absolutely right. Parking is a most important part of the project. Wandsworth had to be satisfied about that case. I should also remind the House that there is a proposed railway link with Victoria Station which, it is hoped, will carry as many as half of the visitors to the new complex when completed.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, having visited the site earlier this week, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware of the enormous benefits to tourism that will arise from the project? Do the Government not have a responsibility in view of the enormous amount of traffic which will visit the complex at weekends and particularly at bank holidays? Is my noble friend sure that Wandsworth can bear the brunt? If not, will be reconsider what he has said?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Auckland makes a very good point. Of course, he is quite right to say that much of the extra traffic will occur at weekends when there is far less traffic in the centre of London.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Wandsworth is not an island and that it is affected by wider considerations, not least those which have been mentioned by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench? Does the Minister recognise that this question is benign and not malignant? We are genuinely seeking from the Minister a recognition that this is an exceptional development which calls for exceptional powers? What can Wandsworth expect from the Minister in the national interest?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The Secretary of State has a direct interest in this matter because he is responsible for Queenstown Road and Nine Elms Lane. If he or the Department of Transport felt that there was a problem, they would obviously make that clear.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not appropriate for the Minister pretty soon to call in —I think that is the term —the parking arrangements; otherwise, it may be too late and serious dislocation could arise?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to planning, the Secretary of State for the Environment did not call in the application because he was satisfied that the London Borough of Wandsworth was competent to decide the case.

Football Hooliganism
11.17 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to protect the reputation of English football following recent disturbances abroad.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the football authorities and spectators to protect the reputation of English football. The Government remain concerned to combat football hooliganism at home and abroad.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister accept that wherever else responsibility lies in this matter there is a prime responsibility upon the Government to react to the disgraceful scenes in Germany which we have witnessed over the past two weeks? Will the Minister bear in mind that what we have seen on television, and elsewhere, of events overseas is very familiar to those of us who follow the situation in this country? Does the Minister agree that when considering the various measures that might be taken to curb this distressing situation it should be recognised that excessive alcohol consumption by the young plays a very important part in the problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully understand and accept what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. The Government are now considering action on four fronts: the imposition of restrictions on overseas travel following conviction for an offence; the conditions for admission to football grounds, including national and club membership schemes; the control and restriction of the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of sports grounds; and the future participation of the national team in international competition. Those are being looked at now, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be meeting the football authorities on 6th July.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have any idea as to where the hooligans concerned get the funds to enable them to travel to these places? Presumably they are not working. Are they on social security?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not think that the Government are in a position to know where the funds come from.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while I sympathise with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is it not the case that no one can protect the reputation of English football except English fans and those who play in, and go to, football matches? Is it not a fact that if the Government were godlike they could hardly undertake that job? May I also draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that in the case of Scottish football, which is played in a civilised country, supporters appear to have learnt to behave very much better without the assistance of the Government?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the slightly different situation in Scotland. I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Lord. The difficulty is that at the end of the day it is well nigh impossible to legislate good manners or good behaviour.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, would it not be possible for the Government to consider reaching an agreement, in particular with the European Community, whereby those who commit offences while abroad have their passports endorsed in the same way as a driving licence is endorsed for offences which have been committed? If that were done, should the person concerned return to the country in which the offence had been committed, the authorities could consider whether to grant him admission and no doubt they would be circumspect if a football match happened to be imminent.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of the four areas at which the Government are looking at the moment, the imposition of restrictions on overseas travel following the conviction for an offence is one of the items.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, should not be so smug in heaping praise upon Scottish football supporters? As I recall, it was only a few years ago that Wembley, for the first and only time, was wrecked after an international match, and it was the Scottish supporters and not the English supporters who did it. So this matter is rather more national than the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, tries to make out.
Is the Minister aware that the three grounds in England that have the biggest average gates also have the least trouble? In the main, the trouble does not happen at the big grounds; it happens away from them. Among chiefs of police dealing with the situation there is the fear that if someone suggests the extreme solution of starting to close down football grounds then the hooligans (who are not genuine football supporters) will go somewhere else to cause a mischief. I think that it is as well to draw attention to the fact that the greatest act of hooliganism perpetrated in the past 12 months occurred last week at Stonehenge and not at a football match.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. The problem goes beyond football and far beyond the football grounds themselves.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I very much appreciate his last remark that this problem goes far beyond football? I say that as one who believes that football is a marvellous game. I have supported one club for over 50 years, but I shall refrain from mentioning the name of that famous ground. Is it not a fact that certain suggestions have been made by individuals who know nothing about football, have never passed through a turnstile in their lives, and do not appreciate the problem that would exist if there were an all-ticket scheme which meant that some 20,000 people had to get through turnstiles? Does he appreciate that the problem is in fact one of general violence in society and that we

1053
ought to be trying to deal with that problem? As my noble friend said, there are problems well outside the area of football.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's remarks. Speaking as an ex-director of a league football club, I entirely agree with him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be worthwhile talking to officials and people who are well known in the world of both rugby league and rugby union, because it seems that rugby does not have this problem? Rugby matches bring out the same fervour and massive support but very little violence.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of the situation with regard to both league and union rugby football.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the Minister and his colleagues, when considering how to deal with this problem, look very carefully at the situation in which Right-wing extremist groups have been seen to have deliberately provoked violence for political purposes?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to what happened in Germany, I am not aware that there was a political content to it.

Teachers' Pay: ILO Finding
11.24 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the finding of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) committee of experts that the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act is in breach of ILO Convention 98 and whether they will take early steps to introduce normal collective bargaining procedures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government will be considering carefully what the International Labour Organisation has said. There will be discussions in the next few months with the teachers' unions and with local education authority employers about future pay and conditions machinery.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has to say. May I follow up that Question by asking her how soon this process is expected to be completed, and if we can expect to see normal collective bargaining procedures put into operation during the course of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act, and perhaps by way of amendment to it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the next step will be further discussions with the interested parties. It is
1054
not possible to say when a final outcome will be reached, but there is a wide variety of important factors that the Government have to take into account, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, in establishing new machinery for determining school teachers' pay and conditions.
The Government put forward certain proposals in a Green Paper, and there have already been brief discussions about future machinery with the teachers' unions and the employers in the context of meetings about this year's report from the interim advisory committee. As I have said, there will be future discussions; but I must make clear that there are still wide differences of opinion among the unions themselves about the machinery that they would like.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while there are differences among the teaching unions, there is unanimity that they dislike having settlements imposed upon them by Her Majesty's Government, however generous the Government may think them to be? Is she further aware that eminently reasonable people within the teaching profession consider that it is not part of our parliamentary democratic process for government to behave in quite such a high-handed manner?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we must look at the history of the matter. It was clearly right to introduce the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act. The Burnham machinery had broken down and something had to be done to sort out the mess. As I have explained, we are working towards a permanent machinery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister recall that it is less than two years ago when she stood at that Dispatch Box, repeatedly and with a straight face assuring me that what was proposed was not in breach of the ILO convention? Will she now be generous, go further and say that not only is it in breach of the ILO convention, but it is in breach of decent industrial relations and proper respect for teachers?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, the Government are considering the ILO statement. However, the ILO itself has already recognised that we are working towards new machinery. Perhaps I may quote from a recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association of the ILO:
"the Committee trusts that the consultations now under way will give the United Kingdom Government an opportunity to make the necessary legislative amendments to conform with Convention 98".
So there is recognition that we are moving toward the right goal.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, is my noble friend able to assist noble Lords (of whom I am one) who have no close familiarity with these idiosyncratic matters by defining the terms of reference and composition of the committee of experts and saying what jurisdiction they have to pronounce upon the statute law of this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not in a position to give my noble friend the detailed composition of

1055
the committee of experts which has so pronounced; but my noble friend will be well aware that this country is party to the ILO convention and has been for a number of years.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in view of the great pressure on parliamentary time of the Government's legislative programme, of which your Lordships are only too well aware, and since legislation may be necessary in order to rectify this matter, could it not be dealt with in the education Bill that is currently before the House, as otherwise there will be an excuse of there being no parliamentary time available?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have already said, this is a matter which is subject to consultation. To elaborate on the fact that there is a wide difference of opinion between the unions about the machinery that they would like to see, perhaps I may explain that one union favours a pay review body and others want a national joint council; one union wants special arrangements for heads and deputies and another union considers that there should be separate arrangements for primary and secondary teachers. So there are a number of factors that will have to be dealt with in order to please all the interested parties.
Lord Morris: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, can the Minister say whether I would be naïve in believing that it is for Parliament to pass the law of the land and for the courts to interpret that law and not this type of committee?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said, as a party to the ILO convention naturally we take into account its pronouncements. That is what we intend to do in the context of the present teachers' pay and conditions negotiations.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are not discussing a unique situation? Does she share my dismay that Britain should be found guilty in the company of such countries as Chile, Colombia, Bangladesh and Rumania of persistently being in breach of obligations which, as she herself has said, are part of conventions to which we have agreed and acceded in the past? If she shares my dismay, can we be assured that the Government will take speedy action to restore Britain to the level of respect which formerly was accorded to us in this United Nations organisation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, the Government are considering what the ILO has said in this matter. The ILO has recognised that we are working towards new machinery.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
11.31 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Firearms (Amendment) Bill be now read a second time.
1056
The Bill before your Lordships today has recently had a somewhat turbulent and eventful passage through another place. The number of speakers taking part in the debate today—and on a Friday—would indicate to me that there will not be a shortage of views expressed on the matter. The debate will be enhanced by two previous members of the police force, and two maiden speakers. We look forward to those contributions with pleasure. It is a cause of some slight, twinkling pleasure that there is a common but unique thread which relates the two maiden speakers—not necessarily to firearms, but more to matters of a nautical nature—in that the one should be called Nelson and the other Portsmouth.
The subject of firearms controls has always lent itself to extremes of opinion, and this Bill is no exception. There has been much criticism of some aspects of the Bill, and a number of changes have been made to its provisions. Some people would prefer to see more changes. Others think that too many have been made. That is, I suppose, inevitable in a controversial Bill, but we have tried to meet the criticism which has been made where we felt that the criticism was justified.
When my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, spoke at Second Reading in another place, he emphasised that, although we believed that the central pillars of our policy were right, we were prepared to listen to legitimate concerns on matters of detail. We have done so, and the result is that the Bill before us today is a changed and, I think, a better Bill than it was when it was first introduced to Parliament. The Bill recognises the proper and reasonable interests of the shooting community. It acknowledges the paramount concern of public safety. And it will help to ensure that all shooting activities—whether sporting, competitive or recreational—can be reasonably carried out, but within a framework of proper and effective control which offers the ordinary citizen the safeguards from the misuse of guns which he has the right to expect.
Perhaps I may say a little about the background to this legislation, why it was brought in, why it was necessary to bring it in, and the criteria that we had in mind when considering the form that it should take.
The tragic events of Hungerford, although now almost a year ago, linger vividly in all our memories, and I do not propose to dwell on them. But this Bill does not begin and end with that tragedy. Other recent incidents involving firearms—which, let us remember, were perfectly legally held—have occurred at Wolverhampton, Bristol, Gunthorpe, Stowmarket and Rochdale, to name but a few. They all had the effect of eroding yet further public confidence in the adequacy of the legislation under which firearms are permitted. There is not one person who is not concerned about the increase in violence, especially where firearms are concerned.
In our endeavour—and I believe it to be a right endeavour—to bring more effective control over these weapons to prevent their misuse, it is unfortunate, as so often happens, that it is the honest, law-abiding citizen, who is going about his affairs in a perfectly legitimate and perfectly proper manner,

1057
who is put to inconvenience. But that is the price which we have to pay because a few in society abuse the privileges and freedoms which have been accorded to them, in a selfish and unacceptable way. The difficulty is to get the balance right, to keep a control and check on these lethal weapons, yet to allow their reasonable use by reasonable people.
I do not pretend that the Bill is the only answer to the problem. Of course it is not. Nor do I claim that it will prevent disasters of this kind ever occurring again. It will not. What I do claim is that it is a reasonable answer—and a proper reaction—to what was an unsatisfactory state of affairs and one in which we have attempted—I think with care—to meet the concerns, so far as is possible, of the wide variety of interests which are inevitably affected by it.
As regards those incidents to which I have referred, some involved firearms, some involved shotguns. It is some 20 years since the last major firearms legislation was enacted. Much has changed since then. In looking at the whole scenario in which firearms are used—their manufacture, their use, their misuse, the methods of trading—it was clear that there was need for a substantial tightening of control. I believe that we are right, not only to tackle the implications of what happened at Hungerford and elsewhere, but to redress the demonstrable weaknesses which exist in other aspects of the control.
Throughout our deliberations the one determining factor which we have sought to pursue is balance; balance between protecting the ordinary citizen, yet preserving the rights of the legitimate shooter; and balance between producing a fair and effective system of control, and ensuring that the police and the shooting community are not subject to excessive or unnecessary administrative burdens. That may be irksome for some, but I think that it is right for all.
The additional burden—and I recognise that it is an additional burden—which is placed on the shooting community, is the minimum which is necessary, and I think that it is accepted as such by most responsible shooters. We have consulted closely with representatives of the shooting community throughout our consideration of the Bill. Immediately after my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced his outline proposals last September, Ministers met with representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, headed by my noble friend Lord Swansea, to discuss their implications.
Throughout the development of the proposals and the progress of the Bill, there have been many meetings between Home Office officials and a whole range of organisations representing all the shooting concerns and disciplines. We remain ready to listen to legitimate concerns on matters of detail. I do not pretend that we have been able to meet them in all their requests. They have a perfectly legitimate interest to protect and to promote. We have acknowledged that. We have respected that. And, where we can, we have accommodated it.
Perhaps I may turn now to the main provisions of the Bill itself. Clause 1 forms a crucial part of the Bill. It extends the list of weapons and ammunition which
1058
are prohibited and which can be held only with the specific authority of the Secretary of State. That authority is not normally given to private individuals, and the clause lists various types of weapon and ammunition which we believe should not be in private hands. They include burst fire weapons, full-bore self-loading rifles—the type of weapon which was used by Michael Ryan at Hungerford—full-bore pump action rifles, and fast-firing short barrelled shotguns. Rocket launchers and mortars will also become prohibited, as will explosive bullets, and any grenades, bombs, rockets and shells which are capable of being used with a firearm. That seems fairly reasonable. Indeed, much of this is uncontroversial.
Concern was expressed in another place about the ban on self-loading rifles, and we have given considerable thought to whether there is room for some compromise. But we remain of the view that the limited sporting use which is made of these weapons is far outweighed by their lethal potential, and that the risk of their further misuse is unacceptable.
Clause 19 makes provision for payments to be made to the owners of self-loading rifles —and any other firearm which will become prohibited under Clause 1(2)—in recognition of the fact that their weapons will have to be surrendered.
Some concern has been expressed about the buy-in figures which my right honourable friend announced, and I should like to make these figures clear. Payment for self-loading rifles which are handed in will be either£150 or 50 per cent. of the average retail price—or, to put it another way, half the shelf price—of the firearm last summer. Payments for other weapons such as the fast-firing short barrelled shotgun will attract the 50 per cent. option only.
The Government do not intend to pay the full retail price of the weapons, as this would include the dealer's mark-up. Research has shown that the auction price of a second-hand weapon at that time was about 50 per cent. of the average retail price of a new weapon. So we hope that that figure is about right.
Clause 1 also provides a reserve power whereby the Secretary of State may make an order to add to the list of prohibited weapons and ammunition any which may appear to him to be especially dangerous. This is an essential power in view of the rapid development in weapons technology.
The present controls on shotguns are very loose. The only ground on which the police may refuse a shotgun certificate is if the applicant is of proven bad character or if his possession of the shotgun would be a danger to public safety. No good reason for possession needs to be established, and there is no limit as to the number or the type of shotguns which may be held on a certificate. As a result, no one really knows how many shotguns there are in private hands, nor where they are held. I think your Lordships will agree that this is not really very satisfactory. New controls for shotguns are therefore set out in Clauses 2 to 4.
Clause 2 redefines the type of smooth-bore gun, which does not require a firearms certificate, which may be held on a shotgun certificate. The result is that

1059
a smooth-bore gun with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds, and a smooth-bore revolver gun may no longer be held on a shotgun certificate. But it allows for smooth-bore guns with large magazine capacity to be adapted to two-shot capacity, provided that they are certified by a proof house, in order to enable them to remain under shotgun controls.
Clause 3 strengthens the criteria for the issue of a shotgun certificate. It requires the chief officer of police to be satisfied that the applicant does not represent a danger to public safety or to the peace. It also provides for an application to be refused where the police are satisfied that an applicant does not have a good reason for wishing to possess a shotgun. This will not affect the majority of ordinary shotgun users, but it will have an effect in cases where there is genuine doubt about someone's motives for seeking to possess a shotgun. I really believe that this is not unreasonable. This clause, taken with Clause 4, also provides for the listing on a shotgun certificate of details of all the shotguns which are possessed by the holder, and for the notification of transfers.
Taken together, these new controls will mean that the shotgun holder has to give more of an account of himself, his guns and his motives. Where his reasons are genuine, this should cause few difficulties. It does, though, enable the ungenuine to be found out and located more easily. These controls will enable the police to make closer inquiries in cases of doubt and to keep track of shotguns which are held by individuals. The burden which they place on the legitimate and responsible shotgun holder will be minimal.
There has been some concern that the firearms legislation will not be administered consistently as between one police force and another. I understand that concern, but I hope that I can reassure your Lordships about it.
The Home Office, in consultation with the shooting interests, has been in the process of revising a memorandum which at present is only available to the police. It is intended that it will be made publicly available. The memorandum gives advice to the police on how the firearms legislation is to be administered. The memorandum is now being updated to take into account the further changes which Parliament may see fit to make in the present Bill to firearms legislation. The shooting interests will continue to be consulted. The memorandum will cover issues such as the territorial conditions, the safekeeping of firearms, the good reason requirement for a firearm certificate, all of which can be subject to different interpretation.
This is a major step forward. It will help to standardise the practices between police forces. It will be done in consultation with the shooting interests. It will be made public so that everyone knows what is going on. It will, I hope, foster better relations and better understanding between the police and the understandable anxieties of individual shooters. I trust that your Lordships will find this reassuring.
I need not, I think, take your Lordships through the rest of the Bill clause by clause, but I should like
1060
to highlight briefly some of the other important provisions.
Clause 7 deals with converted weapons. It ensures that Section 5 weapons—that is to say, those weapons which are prohibited—and Section 1 weapons with a barrel length of less than 24 inches will retain their original classification regardless of anything which may subsequently be done to convert them to a lower category. In other words, once a Section 5 weapon always a Section 5 weapon, however much you monkey around with it. Special provision, though, is made in Clause 7(2) to permit long-barrelled rifles, which have been converted to smooth-bore guns to continue to be held on a shotgun certificate. Only those types of conversion, therefore, which cause the greatest concern will retain their original classification.
Clause 8 provides a means of certifying firearms as deactivated, placing them outside the certification requirements of the 1968 Act and this Bill.
Clause 11 permits a chief constable to issue a shotgun certificate for a period of less than three years in order to enable both a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate to be renewed at the same time. This should help the shooting community and ease the burden on the police.
Clause 12 introduces some new provisions in respect of firearms dealers. The most important is that the status of registered firearms dealer is to be confined to those who can establish that dealing in firearms is a substantial commercial activity. In future, a chief officer may refuse to register an application for a dealer's register unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a firearms dealer to a substantial extent or as an essential part of some other trade, business or profession.
The purpose is to ensure that only legitimate dealers and those who require to handle guns—for example, for research purposes—are registered. We intend at the same time to extend the period of registration from one to three years.
Clause 14 sets out revised arrangements for approval by the Home Office of rifle and pistol clubs, the membership of which is often an important consideration in the grant of a firearm certificate. We shall be looking to see that clubs are properly constituted; that they have suitable arrangements for full and probationary members; that they are run by fit and proper people; that adequate arrangements are made for the security of club firearms and ammunition; and that club activities are carried out at a suitable firing range.
Under present legislation, any visitor who has not spent more than 30 days in this country may bring in, may purchase or may take out with him an unlimited number of shotguns. I believe that this is not reasonable. It is also unsatisfactory that the present legislation makes no provision for the grant of permits or firearm certificates to people such as sportsmen who wish to bring firearms legitimately to this country. Clauses 15 and 16 therefore seek to put these matters right.
Clause 20 establishes a Firearms Consultative Committee. This is something for which the shooting

1061
community has long sought. The qualifications for membership have been widely drawn in order to include representation from the sporting and trading interests, museums, the police and the Home Department.
I am aware that there has been criticism about the composition of this committee in that it is said that the Bill does not allow it to contain members from the sporting or competition world. If any of your Lordships are still concerned about this, I would direct your Lordships to the wording of the Bill which says that members of the committee should be those people who have:
"knowledge and experience of the use of firearms".
Those words were specifically chosen in order to include people from the competition and sporting world.
We think that the committee should consist of at least 13 members including the chairman. We also hope to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage to enable us to pay expenses to committee members. As your Lordships can see from subsection (4), the committee will have an important role to play in reviewing the working of the firearms legislation.
In the Schedule to the Bill, special arrangements are made for museums. They are designed in order to regularise the position of national museums which, following the enactment of the National Heritage Acts, lost their Crown immunity in respect of their firearms collections. They will also extend to local authority museums. The large collections of firearms and significant numbers of staff at major museums would make compliance with the normal certification requirements burdensome, and we have, therefore, provided for a museums licence to be issued on the authority of the Secretary of State.
Everyone recognises that the provisions of the Bill cannot provide any sort of guarantee against criminal abuse, or negligent misuse, of guns. Periodically, human beings go beserk. No law will stop that. What the Bill can and does do is to reduce the risk to the individual citizen and the community at large of suffering from the effects of that happening.
All of these measures have one simple purpose. They aim to ensure the effective control over potentially lethal weapons.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a small price to pay for safeguarding the community as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
11.52 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful as usual for the gracious and lucid way in which the Bill has been introduced by the noble Earl. I must tell him at once that I have a personal grievance which I wish to utter. He has stolen my references to the names of the distinguished noble Earls who will be maiden speakers. As I object to being a gramophone record of the noble Earl I merely say that I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome their speeches when they are made.
1062
I believe that the House will accept as a general matter of policy the need to control properly the possession and the use of firearms. I shall be most surprised if in this debate any noble Lord adopts the view that that principle is wrong and that no revision of our legislation is required in that context.
Having said that, I say to the House most deliberately that all the considerable wisdom that this House possesses will be needed in the following stages of the Bill. I have four reasons for saying that. First, there are substantial lobbies, as noble Lords may have appreciated from the extent of the literature which has arrived upon our desks, if we are lucky enough to have rooms in your Lordships' House, or in some other part of your Lordships' House, if we are not. The bulk of the literature is comparable to that which we received with regard to the subjects of homosexuality and the poll tax. The subject of firearms now runs close to producing the same amount of literature, if it has not already exceeded it. Some of the lobbies are moderate and wise and it is proper to heed what they have to say. Some of them are extreme and have substantial self-interests. We in this House must exercise proper judgment in regard to listening to what lobbies have to say.
In that context we must obviously also exercise judgment to distinguish between trying to control the crimes of the guilty with regard to firearms and the innocent enjoyment of the citizen and those who I would refer to as the peaceful, rural users of firearms. That judgment must be carefully exercised.
The second reason why we must exercise our wisdom in the following stages of the Bill is that, in spite of what the noble Earl said, the legislation follows upon the most tragic occurrence at Hungerford. Although it was, as he said, almost a year ago, we remember that 16 of our fellow citizens were killed and 14 were wounded. There are those who say—I put it no stronger than this and it is part of the lobbying that we have received—that there was not proper or full consultation before this legislation came before this House and another place. In addition to that the Bill had a chequered and somewhat messy passage through another place. I believe that it is not for the first time that the nation relies upon our revising record in regard to this legislation in particular.
The third reason why we must exercise our wisdom most carefully is that, apart from our duty to look after the public at large, which I am sure we all recognise, noble Lords may think that Parliament has a special duty to look after the safety of the police. The police take the largest risk with regard to crimes associated with the use of firearms. We must remember that fact and in our judgment we must have the police very much in our minds as well as the general considerations of the public at large.
The fourth reason why we must exercise our wisdom most carefully is that we must not mislead the public into thinking that in passing this legislation, or anything similar to it, we are guaranteeing that a situation such as occurred at Hungerford will never happen again or that there will necessarily be a lessening of such terrible crimes of violence associated with firearms. The noble Earl

1063
touched on that matter in his opening speech. As he said most fairly, we are trying to ensure that we control as much as possible the illicit use of firearms.
Arising from that I found some rather disturbing, if very material, information being given only a few days ago at a meeting of the Shooters Rights Association. Mr. Colin Greenwood said that he had undertaken detailed research and he gave some figures. This is what he had to say. In 1954 the total number of robberies in London in which firearms were used was four. There were eight occasions on which there was suspicion that they might have been used in addition to the four I have mentioned, but there was no evidence. The figure was four.
In the annual report for 1987 given by the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police—I should have made it clear that I am talking about figures for London—he said there were 1,693 robberies in which a firearm was used. The House may well hesitate for a moment for a little reflection on what has happened to our society and society at large in the years from 1954 to 1988. Perhaps this is not the occasion on which one does anything more than reflect with some sorrow on those figures.
Quite apart from those figures, there were some interesting figures given in another place during the passage of this Bill. I should like to quote them only so that we do not disabuse ourselves of real reasonableness and consideration of what we are doing and what the public can expect. In the proceedings in another place some consideration was given as to what the legislation was abroad, and the effect of it. It is rather interesting and I am not quite sure what one deduces from it, but we ought to know it.
Switzerland has a 625,000-strong militia who all keep their weapons and ammunition at home. It possesses 6,000 assault weapons and 2 million military weapons in total. Kalashnikovs are very easy to acquire and no certification is required on transfer. Armed crime in Switzerland is minimal.
The Home Guard in Denmark provides cover during mobilisation and its members possess 60,000 assault weapons, all of which are kept at their homes. In the past 25 years there have only been 13 homicides attributable to those 60,000 weapons. Those are two countries with little control of firearms.
Perhaps I may turn, by contrast, to Germany, which has the most draconian firearms legislation and control; but its record of firearms-related crimes is far worse than those in the other two countries. Therefore, as I said, we must disabuse ourselves of romancing into thinking that necessarily control of firearms, however rigorous, is going to relieve us of one of the malaises of our time.
There are several matters—and your Lordships may wish to know and may be delighted to know that I shall not be long—on which we ought to concentrate not only on Second Reading but also, if I may say so, at the following stages of the Bill. Provided one does not deal with detail as one does in the following stages of the Bill, I believe that it is always helpful to give the Government an indication of the sort of matters which may well be raised in at
1064
least one quarter of the House in Committee or on Report. If I do not misuse a phrase and seem facetious in this connection, which I do not mean to be, I believe that we must ensure that we do not have any hit and miss legislation.
There is one anomaly with which the noble Earl did not deal. He talked about the need for the banning of self-firing rifles. What he did not do —and incidentally in that connection he mentioned that one had been used by Ryan at Hungerford —was to explain why it is that the Bosetta-type pistol with which Ryan killed half his victims is not subject to a ban. We have the automatic rifle banned and the automatic pistol, which is the easiest thing in the world to carry, not banned.
It so happens, as I understand it, that the Ryan disaster is the only occasion for which there are records of an automatic rifle being used in a firearm-associated crime. Therefore, there appears to be an illogicality, if I may put it that way, at which we must look in that connection.
There is no mention at all in this Bill of mail order sales, which is one of the most dangerous ways, especially in regard to youngsters, of buying weapons. There is no mention at all, although there is mention of weapons being licensed, of any certification required under this Bill by a general practitioner that the person applying is not suffering from any mental illness which ought to prohibit him from having a licence. I should have thought that if we are thinking of Hungerford, that is one of the matters that should be in this Bill.
The noble Earl referred to the question of consistency. He was right to do so because in another place there was much mention of consistency and the need for it. He talked of the memorandum. I have not seen that and I imagine that your Lordships also have not seen it. However, I believe we should ask for a little more than a requirement of a memorandum. There has to be a code of practice—we have become used to codes of practice in your Lordships' House in regard to so much legislation—and the House has to see the code of practice. It must be approved and must show quite clearly that there is consistency of interpretation of the requirements of the Bill so that that is appreciated throughout the police forces in this country.
There must be consistency —there is not at the moment—in the forms issued by the various police forces for further information which is required. Some are very exacting; some are not. I should have thought that we would like to see consistency in that connection.
The next matter at which we must look which is not in this Bill is the requirement for a national register for missing and stolen weapons. With all the electronic ability that we have to enable us to have such a register, surely that is necessary if we are trying to trace and control possession of illicit weapons.
Perhaps I may come to my very last point, which is one with which the noble Earl dealt by reference to what happened in another place. But he told your Lordships only half the story, not because he wished in any way to hold it back but because he was limited, I am sure, in time. The consultancy committee which

1065
is to be set up is to be established under Clause 20 of the Bill. It was only in the Bill as it came to us from another place because the Government were defeated in regard to the requirements for this committee, which the Government did not want embodied in the Bill.
The Government thereupon, in Clause 20, put forward this limitation upon the consultative committee. It is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It is to keep under review and make recommendations for the improvement of the working of firearms legislation, and then come these vital words:
"to make proposals for amending those provisions".
But the words that have been inserted are:
"if requested by the Secretary of State".
Therefore, if he does not request any proposals the committee has no right to make them. The clause then continues:
"to advise on any other matter"—
but only on any other matter —
"which he [the Secretary of State] may refer to the committee".
One could not have a more weak and wobbly consultative committee if one tried awfully hard to define it.
This was dealt with by the Minister, with old-world courtesy existing between the Minister and his Back-Bencher. This is what happened; and I finish on this note of gracious courtesy and chivalry. The Minister said, as reported at col. 415 of the proceedings in another place for 25th May:
"My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who spoke with great eloquence during the debate, laid down one essential condition—that the committee should be statutory—and we have met it. He made it plain that he had no objections to other significant changes, and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach.
I look forward to hearing his comments".
The honourable Member, Sir Hector Monro, replied as follows:
"One would have expected my hon. Friend not to devalue the committee, but to keep its original strength and content. Instead, one finds the truncated and emaciated rubbish that he has put in now".
I do not use that language in your Lordships' House.
12.12 p.m.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, I seek your Lordships' indulgence while I do my very best to keep to the conventions of the House and deliver what I hope very much will be seen as a non-controversial speech on what I know to be an extremely controversial subject.
With that very much in mind, I have to say at the outset that I would wholeheartedly support any proposed legislation by any political party which is designed to assist in curbing the spread of firearms or shotguns and of their illegal or irresponsible use. I have absolutely no difficulty in saying that, having spent almost 23 years of my life as a policeman and having witnessed at first hand the damage, the destruction, the terror and the death caused by the illegal, accidental, irresponsible or criminal use of these weapons.
1066
I am also able to relate from first hand experience what it is like to deal with the armed criminal face to face; and I am also able to tell opponents of firearms legislation that to experience the sensation of having a loaded sawn-off shotgun pointed in your direction, as I have, is somewhat removed from the relatively tranquil atmosphere of the local shooting club.
Critics of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill maintain that the proposed measures have been brought about as a result of government panic or media hysteria following the tragedy at Hungerford. The tragedy at Hungerford served to illustrate all too vividly yet again the problems confronting us as a society and has served only to accelerate that which so many of us so surely believe needs to be done.
If I appear from now on to be addressing my remarks today more towards shotguns than towards firearms it is only because my time is somewhat limited. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks for the most part to Clause 3. Surprising though it may seem, it is a fact that nobody in this country can estimate with any true degree of accuracy just how many shotguns are held legally, let alone illegally. It is also a fact that many shotguns are held by people residing in urban areas who have no apparent justifiable reason for possessing them. These people do not engage in any of the recognised pursuits involving the use of shotguns. As the law stands at present, provided they are not prohibited from possessing a shotgun they may apply for and obtain a shotgun certificate which, having been granted, permits them to possess any number of shotguns. The question has to be asked: what do all these people require these shotguns for?
I do not propose to attempt to answer that question today. I have come to certain conclusions on the subject and I am sure that the conclusions of many of your Lordships correspond with mine. For that reason I am sure that many of us will appreciate the necessity for this Bill and in particular the measures contained in Clause 3. My only reservation in respect of the proposed new subsection (2A) to the principal Act concerns the words "if known" in relation to the identification numbers of shotguns, because most modern shotguns bear their identification numbers both on the barrel and on the stock, and have done so for a number of years. No doubt that is one of the many aspects that will be considered in Committee.
I am sure we will also examine the apparent contradiction in terms, again in Clause 3, between the new subsections (1A)(b) and (1B) in respect of the grant and renewal of shotgun certificates. Subsection (1A)(b) states:
"No such certificate shall be granted or renewed if the chief officer of police … is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one".
Subsection (1B) states:
"and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph"—
referring to subsection (1A)(b)—
"merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it to anyone else to use".
If that is the case, why have a shotgun at all?

1067
I know that there are a few exceptions, but in general terms this would appear to be a loophole through which almost anyone wishing to possess shotguns may pass and it appears to undo much of the proposed tightening of this legislation.
Having studied the Bill from cover to cover I can see nothing to support the views expressed by opponents that it curtails shooters' rights in any way which might be construed as unacceptable. Among many others, the Federation of Shooting Sports Clubs has produced a set of guidance notes which overall, in 58 paragraphs, reaches the conclusion that consultation between all interested parties—whatever that may mean—and the Government is the answer to all our current problems. It is my belief that the Government could have consultations with all interested parties from now until the cows come home and still be no nearer agreement with the various shooting factions. In the meantime, the proliferation of shotgun ownership would continue unabated, as no doubt would the use of shotguns and firearms in general.
I am sure that we all have our own theories and have come to our own conclusions as to why there has been a veritable flood of firearms legislation and gun legislation since the mid-1960s. But whatever those conclusions may be, the fact is that the Government are attempting in this Bill to tighten up gun legislation for the benefit of the vast majority of the population, shooters included. To the shooters whose interests I do not believe to be in any way damaged by this Bill, I say this: legislation to tighten up existing firearm and shotgun legislation is required now and not in two, five or 10 years' time. To those who continue to put forward the fact that the use of firearms and shotguns in crime has remained relatively constant over the past few years—in itself this is not in dispute—perhaps I may draw their attention to the warnings used in advertisements for unit trusts and the like. In those advertisements there are always the words: "Past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future".
I know that this Bill crosses all party lines and that there are supporters and opponents of it on all sides of the House. I have seen all too often the horrific aftermath of the illegal, irresponsible and the criminal use of firearms and shotguns. In general terms therefore the Bill has my full support. May I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for the welcome given me in your Lordships' House and for the kind attention afforded me today. Thank you.
12.21 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Earl's famous forbear is claimed to have said, in so many words, when putting a telescope to his blind eye, "I see no signal". I know that is not actually what he said. Today we heard the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, speak from the heart as a police officer who served for 23 years and who has faced people with firearms. It is amazing that he managed to make a speech which was non-controversial. It is very easy for us to talk about the prohibition of firearms. Actually to face someone with a loaded firearm takes guts. I hope that there will be further occasions on which the noble Earl gives us the benefit of his advice.
Noble Lords; Hear, hear!
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was hoping that my speech today would follow that of the noble Earl. His was very good. It was fair and non-controversial. Personally, I have never fired a shot in anger. I have fired a ·303 at Bisley; I have fired machine guns there. The other day I went to my local licensed gun dealer and handed in my ·22 rifle and ammunition, I had no reason to have it. As the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, said, there are people holding firearms today who have no earthly reason to do so.
I live surrounded by what amount probably to millions of acres of Ministry of Defence land where one can shoot. I have never owned a shotgun and I have never wanted to. But it worries me that the Bill confines more and more those people who are law abiding and who take out certificates. They are licensed. If one intends to commit a crime one probably does not use a licensed firearm. As the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, said, no one knows how many unlicensed firearms there are. If one is to commit a crime those are the weapons that will be used.
Like all noble Lords, I have received a vast amount of material from the firearms lobby. I thought that it would probably be like that issued by the National Rifle Association of America which supports all Americans who carry arms. I am dead against that. I read as much as I could and I was struck by the fairness of the arguments put forward. I thought that I would be dead against it, but my conclusion is that we do not have to worry about licensed firearms. I believe that we can forget Hungerford. There was one deranged man who should never have been allowed to become a member of a gun club. It is not the licensed guns that we have to worry about; it is the unlicensed ones.
The other day I bought a Webley ·22 air pistol. I placed a milk bottle in my garden 35 feet away, aimed and actually hit it. I shattered the milk bottle with a gun for which I require no licence. One can go from air pistols to air rifles, but probably far worse is the crossbow. Why does anyone in this country want to own a crossbow and for what purpose? Target shooting? No. They may exist but I do not know of any clubs where one has members with crossbows. So why do we allow them to be sold?
Personally, I am against blood sports; so I do not like shooting, anyway. The Bill is very important but it is like the curate's egg —good in parts. I feel that at later stages we shall have to look very carefully at the various clauses to see whether we can tighten them up and improve them. In conclusion, perhaps I may once again congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, on a wonderful speech.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, on his maiden speech. Having made mine so recently I know only too well the courage that is required to stand up and speak on what is a very controversial subject. The noble Earl handled that extremely well. He brought to your Lordships' House a feel for the practicalities of armed crime and what it means to the police officer. I am sure that we shall listen with great

1069
pleasure to the further contributions that he will no doubt be making in your Lordships' House.
I should make it clear from the outset that shooting is not one of my recreations. Nevertheless, as a boy I was brought up in rural Lincolnshire where shotguns were to be seen in most houses and barns. I used my father's ·410 to shoot rabbits and as a member of the school OTC I was trained to handle and use a ·303 Lee Enfield rifle. Later, as a member of the Royal Air Force, I had experience of clay pigeon shooting and I learnt to handle a Browning machine gun. Therefore, I have some practical experience, albeit not recent, of handling firearms. In 1959 I moved to Birmingham and thereafter my experience became much more centred on the criminal use of firearms rather than on the complexities of the night poaching and the ground game Acts.
The watershed for the police probably came in 1966 when three detectives were gunned down on the streets of London in one incident. The subsequent manhunt for one of those involved led many senior police officers to question the ability of the force to confront the armed criminal. At that time all they had was some tear gas together with a few weapons which were generally very old and often had been obtained by way of confiscation from criminals or had been handed in by members of the public. Firearms training was non-existent and reliance was placed on those members of the force who happened to have had military experience, either in the armed forces during the war or as national servicemen. In addition, there were the members of the force's sports and shooting section.
Clearly this was not satisfactory and by 1970 a Home Office working party was recommending a much more professional approach with standard weapons and recognised training. Armed crime, however, was still at a level where it was not regarded as necessary to analyse it in the criminal statistics. That did not come until 1976. What a different picture it is today. Fuelled by the perceived risk of increasing armed crime, the activities of the IRA and international terrorism, every police force now has its stock of modern weapons. The Metropolitan Police alone has 1,600, including 14 sub-machine guns. Regular training is given to anything between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the total police force. Permanently armed officers are to be seen on duty at our major airports, and we learn that in one or two areas weapons are carried routinely in patrol cars.
By 1986 the number of offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used had risen from approximately 1,700 in 1971 to 9,363. There are those who would claim that the growth in armed crime is the consequence of the greater arming of the police. There is no evidence, I suggest, that that is the case. Indeed, in 1922 the Metropolitan Police had 400 weapons more than it has today. However, what is beyond doubt is that certainly in the urban areas there is a real fear and apprehension of armed crime which cannot be ignored. This apprehension existed well before the tragic events of Hungerford, Wolverhampton, Bristol or the others. Certainly the police saw a need
1070
long before last year for the greater control of shotguns.
It is against that background that we must examine the Bill and the balance which the Government are seeking to strike between the need to ensure the safety of the general public from the irresponsible or criminal use of firearms and the need to protect the rights and interests of those who use such weapons in pursuance of their work or their sporting and leisure interests, as the 1987 White Paper puts it. It must be recognised too that it is necessary to restore public confidence that the possession of firearms is controlled. The public must also be confident of the effectiveness of the police in reducing crime.
The fundamental questions which we must address are whether as a result of the Bill the community is likely to feel reassured and whether crime involving firearms is likely to be reduced to an extent which at least justifies the increased restrictions on those who seek to use firearms lawfully. As to the first question, as a result of the Hungerford tragedy many people were surprised, if not indeed shocked, to find that self-loading rifles were to be found in the hands of private individuals. They are looking to the Government to prohibit such weapons and they will not feel safeguarded unless they are prohibited. Additionally, they are looking for some action to encourage them that their fear of facing a handgun or a sawn-off shotgun is recognised and that illegal possession and use of such weapons will be made more difficult. The Bill will go a long way to reassure them of this, always provided that there is an accompanying decrease in armed crime. Whether the new provisions will also achieve that is a much more difficult question to answer, principally because we know so little about armed crime save that it exists.
Inevitably the statistics are somewhat unreliable, being based in large part on information supplied by the victims. It is anybody's guess whether the sawn-off shotgun which they allege was used was not in fact two tubes taped together, or whether the pistol was not in fact only an imitation. Statistically, in all categories of crime except robbery it is the most easily obtainable weapon—that is to say, the airgun—which is the most frequently used. In 1986, out of 9,363 armed crimes reported, no fewer than 5,886 were committed with airguns. That is followed by the pistol and then the shotgun. Of those two, the pistol is used more frequently in robbery in the ratio of approximately 2:1. However, in homicides and serious wounding the shotgun is undoubtedly the major weapon. Clearly our major effort must be directed at keeping these two weapons out of the hands of criminals.
It will be said that it is not the lawful holders of these weapons who are the criminals, so why direct one's effort at them. However, it should not be overlooked that, apart from a few which may be smuggled into this country from abroad, all weapons start out by being lawfully held by somebody. Again, unfortunately, we have no good evidence as to how they then eventually get into the hands of the criminal. There is talk of guns being bought easily in Belgium or in the Mediterranean areas and then being smuggled into this country. All we can say is that most of those weapons used in crime turn out to

1071
be old rather than new ones and they are probably made available by other criminals who act as dealers.
Most police officers believe that the weapons come into the possession of those dealers following theft. Indeed there are specific examples of weapons having been stolen in order to commit crime with them. It is a matter of real concern that every year on average 2,616 weapons, including 678 shotguns and 167 pistols—in 1986 alone it was 804 and 177—are reported to the police as stolen. If one takes that over a period of 10 years, a great many weapons have got into the hands at least of thieves. No one knows how many thefts of shotguns go unreported. Very few, if any, of those stolen weapons are recovered. If we can stop the supply by ensuring that only really responsible people are permitted to have them—people who understand the importance of the real security of their weapons and of the ammunition—it should in the long run at least have an effect on armed crime. I therefore particularly welcome the new provisions requiring shotguns to be kept in a secure place when not in use and the revised arrangements for running shooting clubs.
I am not saying that I regard the Bill as being entirely acceptable. I am especially concerned about Clause 16 which permits a visitor to purchase and possess shotguns for export without holding a shotgun certificate. Unlike Section 1 firearms which are required to be delivered by the dealer to the point of export, clearly this provision makes it possible for shotguns to be diverted to criminals before export. I believe that they should be treated in exactly the same way as Part I firearms; that is to say, they should not come into the possession of the purchaser.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am concerned about the decision not to ban mail-order sales. If the Government are introducing powers to require photographs to be placed on firearm and shotgun certificates, presumably this is for the purposes of the police and dealers so that they will be able better to identify the person who is presenting the certificate. If that is the case, how can it apply in respect of mail orders, where the certificate is sent by post to the dealer? Perhaps the noble Earl can explain what is intended in this respect.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the use of what is known as "armour-piercing ammunition". Further, when ammunition which is not strictly armour-piercing, is fired from high velocity rifles, it is equally capable of piercing the body armour used by the police—which was the case in Hungerford. I am not aware of any legitimate requirement for this ammunition, aside from the armed forces, and I hope that the Minister will look again at the possibility of outlawing ammunition with this capability—despite the apparent difficulty of finding an appropriate definition for it. I understand that the police are required by the Home Office not to obtain this ammunition for their own use, which presumably means that it can be defined reasonably satisfactorily.
Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I believe that further thought should be given to the part which could be played by the family practitioner in the registration and licensing process. At least the Government have promised guidance and I presume
1072
that the Association of Chief Police Officers has also been consulted upon the matter, although the noble Earl did not mention that fact. I hope that this guidance might address the issue. For example, I wonder whether a list of medical conditions could be drawn up which would disqualify the sufferer from possessing a firearm of any description, as is the case with driving licences, where the applicant for a licence has to declare whether or not he suffers from certain prescribed medical conditions which then have to be reported to the licensing authorities by the medical practitioner if they develop after the licence has been issued. In this context, too, I hope that the police will be given the necessary resources to enable them to employ full-time experienced staff in the registration and licensing field, rather than leaving it to whichever officer happens to be available at the time.
In conclusion, our best safeguard against the unlawful use of firearms is the inbuilt, natural unease which this nation has for the casual, open possession and use of such weapons, as one sees in other countries. Indeed, that is why it is still a cultural shock for most people to see an armed police officer. Most people are reluctant to accept that we must naturally go down that road. It is essential that that national reaction should not be weakened by an escalation of violence of any kind. The present situation worries me in that connection. It must be buttressed by sensible up-to-date and well enforced firearms legislation which recognises that the right to carry and use firearms should be granted only to those who have a good reason to possess them and who are clearly fit, trained and responsible enough to handle them properly; and able to secure their security when they are not in use. I believe that the Bill will help to that end and I therefore support it.
12.44 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for their kind words. I especially enjoyed their remarks about the maritime connection. I feel most fortunate to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech on this Bill. I speak not only as a keen shot but also as one who is aware that the proper control of firearms is in the interests of everyone; that is, the general public and the gun user alike. The timing of the Bill is the result of the Hungerford tragedy. However, leaving that aside for the moment, a new firearms Act is necessary both to take account of the advances in weapons technology since the 1968 Act and to tighten up the existing laws.
One example of the new technology is the development of burstfire weapons which are capable of firing three shots from one pull of the trigger. I do not know of any legitimate civilian use for those weapons. It is logical that they should be transferred to Section 5, along with explosive bullets which are quite unnecessary for game or target shooting.
Loopholes in the 1968 Act have produced ingenious abuses; such as, the conversion of pistols in such a way as to enable them to be legally held on a shotgun certificate. Such conversions will now rightly become offences under the provisions of the Bill. Other sensible provisions include the requirement

1073
that a shotgun certificate must specify the number and description of the shotgun to which it relates; that the certificate must be produced in order to purchase ammunition and that photographs of the holder should be fixed to both firearms and shotgun certificates.
The Bill provides for the setting up of a firearms consultative committee. I see this as a good opportunity for the creation of a forum where the committee can get together with the police firearms experts to draft a code of conduct for the shooter, and also a code for the police to refer to when considering applications for shotgun and firearms certificates.
There is already considerable concern about the differing attitudes of chief constables towards gun ownership. There must be consistency and equality under the law in this regard, as in everything else. I do not think that the Bill, as it stands, adequately addresses the problem.
I should like to see a specific provision for representation from the fields of sport, recreation and competition on the committee, without which I feel it would not be properly constituted. There should also be an imposition on the Secretary of State to consult the committee before introducing any new legislation.
I mentioned the Hungerford incident earlier. It would be impossible to speak on the Bill without referring to it. If course it was right for the Government to respond. Indeed, it is unthinkable that they would not do so. However, the result has been the introduction of a Bill which has been drafted in a highly-charged atmosphere in which misinformation and confusion has ruled.
I remain to be convinced that the transfer of self-loading and pump-action rifles (apart from 22 rim-fire) to Section 5 is an appropriate response. After all, in no fewer than four European countries—namely, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—military pattern self-loading rifles, together with ammunition, are kept at home by members of their militias and home guards. Indeed, Switzerland actively encourages the integration of civilian marksmanship into the structure of national defence.
I have been unable to obtain any figures about the number of incidents involving legally held self-loading rifles since the Firearms Act 1920. Apparently such figures have not been compiled. Therefore in my opinion there is not sufficient evidence to support taking this drastic step which will not only ruin the sport and enjoyment of thousands of law-abiding people—including many who are disabled and cannot operate a bolt-action rifle—but will also make it most difficult for professional stalkers and gamekeepers to carry out their jobs efficiently. I hope that that aspect of the Bill can be amended somehow.
I welcome the Government's change of heart on self-loading and pump-action shotguns so that those which are capable of firing three shots before reloading may still be held on a shotgun certificate. If, however, the ban on self-loading and pump-action rifles is to remain part of the Bill, the compensation terms for surrendered firearms must be improved so
1074
that their owners will receive the full market value for them on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
I hope that my speech has not been tendentious and that I have not spent too much time repeating what other noble Lords have said. I trust that where I have expressed myself forcefully I have not tested the tolerance and kindness which your Lordships reserve for maiden speakers. I am sure that the considerable weight of expertise in the House that will be brought to bear on the Bill will turn it into good and practical legislation. It is in that knowledge that I should like to give my support to the Bill.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, it is a very particular pleasure for me, and one that has fallen to my lot only once previously, to congratulate a maiden speaker. I have great pleasure in doing so in this case. My noble friend is a well-known sportsman. He speaks with some experience on the subject and I am sure that as well as that experience he has a measure of ability. I hope that he will be able and willing to give your Lordships the benefit of that ability on some future occasion.
I must first declare my interest as a life-long shooter with an interest in the development of firearms of all kinds and, especially on this occasion, as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council of which some mention has already been made. It comprises the national governing bodies of practically every branch of the shooting sport whether involved with game shooting, shooting at targets and prey with shotgun, rifle and pistol. It is acknowledged by the Home Office as the mouthpiece for all shooting sports.
It would be easy to say that this is a bad Bill and sit down immediately. Your Lordships might welcome that. However, I think some explanation is called for. The number of speakers today bears witness to the wide degree of interest among your Lordships and outside Parliament. The Government may have been slightly taken aback by the number of speakers, which probably exceeded their expectations.
The whole country was naturally appalled on 19th August last year when we saw and heard the reports on the radio, television and in the newspapers about that terrible disaster at Hungerford—a madman on the loose. There was of course an immediate outcry, which was only to be expected, from the press and the public, but much of it was extremely ill-informed. It was also to be expected that there would be immediate pressure on the Government from many sources to do something about it. I can imagine the figure in Downing Street beckoning one of Her Majesty's Ministers and saying, "Douglas, do something". What the Government have done has not been well received by a great many people, especially in the shooting world.
On 21st August, two days after Hungerford, I wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office on behalf of the BSSC expressing horror at what had happened. I said that I hoped that the Government would treat the case in isolation and would not visit the sins of one madman on the rest of

1075
the shooting community. I also offered consultation if the Government wanted to make up their minds about what they were going to do. The Minister acknowledged the letter but went no further. We heard nothing more for months. Then, on 22nd September, the Home Secretary announced his intentions at Torquay at a meeting of middle-ranking police officers. He said:
"For some time I have been considering in what ways our firearms legislation should be tightened. The fearful events at Hungerford gave added impetus to this work".
He announced his proposals, which were later incorporated in the White Paper and the Bill.
His opening sentence begs the question: in what ways before Hungerford was it thought necessary to tighten the law? Successive Home Secretaries in the past nine years have said that they did not see any necessity for any major change in the law. They have now done an about face. So one may well ask, "Where is the fire? Why all the hurry?"
The Bill has all the hallmarks of panic legislation. I am sure your Lordships will agree that panic legislation, whatever the circumstances and whatever the reason for it, is seldom a success. The Bill has been cobbled together in great haste and without any consultation with shooting interests. It is such a complex, technical subject that one would have thought that the Government would need all the expert advice that they could obtain.
Some of your Lordships may remember what happened in 1973 when the Government produced a Green Paper on the reform of the firearms laws. It was debated in both Houses. It was shown to be thoroughly impractical, undesirable and unnecessary. It was shelved. The Government have now taken that Green Paper out again, blown the dust off it and incorporated its recommendations in the Bill. Much of the Bill is irrelevant to what happened at Hungerford.
Shooting is not a minority interest although it is often regarded as such by the public and the press, because it does not attract much public attention. It is not a spectator sport although your Lordships may remember that television series called "The Golden Shot" which appeared a year or two ago and which I think was popular. Shooting is a purely amateur sport. It attracts no big money prizes and for that reason it does not attract the publicity which it may deserve. It is the second biggest participatory sport in the country, second only to angling. It is wholesome recreation in its various forms for all ages, both sexes and, in many cases, for disabled people. It also inculcates a kind of mental discipline.
On the figures available to me, I estimate that the number of shooters in the United Kingdom taking part in all branches of the sport is somewhere between 3 million and 4 million. That figure includes a large number of people who do not belong to a rifle club or any national governing body. It is a far from negligible section of the population. The point is that they are all law-abiding and responsible members of society. They have to prove themselves as such in order to hold firearms and shotguns. I think it is the only recreation in which those participating have to undergo positive vetting by the police.
1076
Many noble Lords, I am sure, have been brought up on the jingle which begins:
"Never let your gun
Pointed be at anyone".
That thought is always first and foremost in the minds of responsible shooters. In competitions, certainly the strictest safety precautions are always observed. The Rambo image which has been attached to some forms of shooting is quite unjustified. People who use that term have probably never been on a rifle or pistol range themselves. They do not know what they are talking about.
The history of firearms legislation in this country, which goes back to about 1920, shows that it has not stopped armed crime. It never will stop armed crime because the criminal has no difficulty in obtaining weapons from sources outside the law. He is not concerned with any laws passed by Parliament; he will laugh at them. The only one who suffers from the legislation is the legitimate shooter, who suffers from increasing erosion of the right to practise the recreation of his choice. I think one must agree that in a free society such as the one with which we are blessed in this country, every member ought to have the right to practise the recreation of his choice as long as it is properly regulated. It is generally acknowledged that the present law under the 1968 Act works as well as it could be expected to. There is room for improvement, but a reform such as is envisaged in the Bill is totally wrong and using a much too restrictive means.
The increase in armed crime which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and others brings out the whole question of whether our penal system acts strongly enough and whether the courts make the fullest use of the powers which they already have. I think that there is an undeniable statistical connection between the increase in the incidence of armed crime and the abolition of capital punishment, but that is another question to which noble Lords may address themselves at some future time.
The attitude of the Government, of successive governments, reminds me of a mother saying to one of her children, "Go out to the garden and see what young Willie is doing and tell him to stop it!" All legislation which comes before Parliament is drafted for a purpose, but what does this Bill seek to achieve? Have the Government really demonstrated the need for it? The Bill is an increased erosion of the freedom of the individual. Although the present legislation has been shown to be quite adequate, there is room for improvement, given good will and consultation on both sides. The Home Secretary has said that no law can guarantee against criminal behaviour. He said so in the debate on the White Paper on 2nd December, and he also said in the debate on 26th October that the law cannot cater for the madman. Its only purpose is as a sop to public opinion. The old expression vox populi which comes to mind in this connection is sometimes a not very reliable indication.
The shooting community are sick and tired of being treated as scapegoats for the actions of criminals and madmen. They strongly resent being treated as potential criminals or potential lunatics. If

1077
the present law had been properly applied, the disaster of Hungerford would not have happened. Even if this Bill had been before Parliament this time last year it would not have prevented Ryan going mad and killing a number of people by whatever means he could.
Not enough attention has been paid to the role in this incident of the Thames Valley police. The chief constable's report and the debate in another place on Second Reading cast grave doubts on whether that force did its job properly in granting Ryan his firearms certificate in a very short space of time, as well as in its reaction on the day.
Noble Lords perhaps may not realise that there is a considerable amount of co-operation between the national governing bodies of rifle clubs and the police. If a club acquires a new member who is not known to it, its usual practice is to make him a provisional or temporary member. Only after a period of time when he has established his bona fides to its satisfaction will the club support his application to the police for a grant of a firearms certificate. That was not done in this case and it is quite clear that Ryan was only a provisional member of the club because his membership card was so stamped. Many of us would very much like to know how that got past the police. It is surprising that no official inquiry has been instituted into the role played by the police. That has been swept under the carpet and the legitimate shooter has to carry the can.
The Government's intentions were announced on 22nd September without any consultation of any sort with shooting interests. Of course we had many meetings after that with Ministers and officials, but the Government's attitude was that some of the proposals were what they called pillars of policy. Their whole attitude could be summed up as, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts". The Government have refused to face up to the realities and the technicalities of shooting and have had a closed mind throughout. They should have been prepared, as this subject is so technical, to take the benefit of the best advice they could get.
The use of self-loading rifles is not fully understood, but they have been used with complete safety for over 40 years. The incident at Hungerford was the first and only incident so far in which a rifle of that category has been used in crime. But if, for example, Ryan had run amok with a kitchen knife, what would the Government do? Ban all kitchen knives? If he had been driving, say, a Ferrari and had run into a bus queue, would the Government ban all Ferraris or any cars capable of travelling at over 70 miles an hour?
The safety record of practical shooters is 100 per cent. They enforce high standards of discipline in their competitions. If this Bill goes through in its present form, they will be prevented altogether from taking part in international competitions in which up until now they have competed with great honour and considerable success. They will be regarded in future with some derision, rather in the same way as "Eddie the Eagle", and they will become a laughing stock in shooting circles.
1078
The Government have made great play of the lethal effects of self-loading rifles and in particular they have had what amounts to an obsession about magazine capacity. They have persuaded themselves that a rifle with a magazine capacity of, say, 20 rounds is more lethal than one with a magazine capacity of four or five rounds. That is ridiculous. A weapon is either lethal or it is not. There are no degrees of lethality. When my noble friend comes to reply, perhaps he will give us an example of a weapon which is only slightly lethal.
When the Bill was first published, no compensation clause was included. The matter was one of straight confiscation without compensation. Understandably, there was such a row about that in another place during Second Reading and at the beginning of the Committee stage that the Government were forced to do something about the matter. They therefore added the compensation clause. However, that is still completely inadequate. It shows a meanness on the part of the Government which is beyond belief. Such rifles can cost up to £1,000 or even £1,500 off the shelf. A few days ago at Bisley I saw an example of a rifle which was custom-made for its owner, who said that it had cost approximately £4,000.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Knights, mentioned the question of mail order weapons. A great deal of nonsense has been talked on that subject. That method of transaction is subject to exactly the same conditions as any other transaction with firearms. The vendor must be a licensed dealer and the purchaser must be entitled, under a firearms certificate, to purchase a weapon of the kind that he wants from that dealer, whether by post or over the counter. There is no difference between the methods of transaction.
As regards the expert consultative committee, shooting interests were pressing for that long before this Bill was drafted and also before the Hungerford massacre. We view that as essential for the proper administration of the law. Against the wishes of the Government, the provision was accepted by the Standing Committee in another place. On Report the Government drew the teeth of the provision. In its present form it is much less effective. We should like to restore it to something like its previous form. Such a committee could provide the Government with expert advice which is not fully available to them at present. It could take account of technological developments while the law, as we have seen in the case of the best of our weapons, is overtaken by technical developments. It could also assist in the drafting of a code of conduct as regards security, and help to achieve greater uniformity in the administration of the law between one police force and another.
I should like to ask my noble friend, when he comes to reply, to take note of the fact that there are a number of police forces which are jumping the gun and anticipating the law coming into effect as is envisaged in the Bill. I hope that he will impress on them that they are still bound to apply the law as it stands under the 1968 Act.
I thank the Home Office for laying on a demonstration at the Metropolitan Police

1079
laboratories last Tuesday. It was very interesting. However, not all of it was relevant to the Bill. That was especially true of the part of the demonstration that involved the firing of fully automatic weapons, which, as the Government know, are prohibited under present law. It was a demonstration of a volume of unaimed fire which had no connection with the legitimate use of such weapons by private shooters. Above all, it reminded me of the fat boy in Pickwick Papers who said to an elderly lady:
"I want to make your flesh creep".
I hope that the Government will reflect on the debate and on what has been said in the press. There are many other points which I should like to mention. However, I believe that other noble Lords who speak in the debate may deal with many of them. Perhaps I may mention one comment which was made in the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday of this week in a leading article dealing with reform of the drinking laws. That stated.
"It is easy enough to make instant law, like the ill-drafted legislation curbing the use of some weapons after the Hungerford massacre, and then discover that the freedoms of the law-abiding majority have been violated to get at an errant minority".
That is a message which I should like to leave with your Lordships. I hope that the Government will note what has been said this afternoon and will make an effort to improve the Bill to make it easier for the police to administer. Otherwise, it will impose an intolerable burden on them which will inevitably result in an increase in the fees charged for certificates. I hope that the Government will attempt to put the Bill into a form which will be easier to administer and easier for the legitimate shooter to live with. They have not adequately demonstrated the necessity for the Bill and they must approach the matter with an open mind and show that they are prepared to listen to reasoned argument. I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time.
1.16 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before I begin, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I must leave the House at four o'clock to catch an aeroplane and it is conceivable that I shall not be able to hear the whole of his winding-up speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in the much more elegant phraseology which he is wont to employ, the Bill in front of us has been hastily cooked up in the aftermath of the Hungerford massacre. That does not mean that it is all bad. However, unless we are careful, it may deprive many innocent and law-abiding shooters of their sport without having any effect on the illicit owners of firearms.
I shall turn to various points in the Bill which give me cause for concern. Clause 3(1A)(b) relates to grant and renewal of shotgun certificates. It states:
"No such certificate shall be granted or renewed if the chief officer of police … is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one".
I am glad to hear of the memorandum which is to be given to chief officers of police as a guide as to how that is to be interpreted. However, I am worried about the contents of the memorandum. Perhaps it will be possible for those of us who are interested to see the draft memorandum.
1080
I am concerned lest the situation which already obtains in a considerable number of police authorities regarding firearms certificates should be extended to shotgun certificates—that is, when one applies for a firearms certificate, one is asked to state where one will be using the firearm. If one is the owner of a stalking estate, one does not have any problem. One says that it will be used on the estate and that ends the matter. However, if one does not own an estate, one has a problem. If you do not own an estate you have a problem because you cannot say where you are going to stalk or shoot until you have been invited. Nor can you know two or three years in advance where you will be able to rent shooting or stalking.
That brings me to the question of the estate rifle. Mainly because of the difficulty of obtaining a firearm certificate, which I have mentioned, many stalking guests and tenants do not own a rifle of their own, so it is common practice that they use the estate rifle. If they did not, life would be very difficult indeed both for them and for the estate. However, under existing legislation it is illegal to lend a rifle to anyone over the age of 18. The police turn a blind eye, partly because they really cannot spend their days in the stalking season on the top of mountains checking up on what is happening. Perhaps the Bill would provide an opportunity to regularise that position.
To return to the question of shotguns, I should be very sorry to see a situation in which the same difficulty could apply to applications for shotgun certificates. Few, if any, estates are in a position to lend guns to everyone who comes to shoot grouse or pheasants; nor would it be satisfactory if they were since a gun has to suit and fit the individual.
There appears to be no right of appeal against a refusal of a licence or certificate. Perhaps the noble Earl could comment on that. I wonder whether the advisory committee—that committee which must not speak unless it is spoken to, like a well behaved child—could possibly act as an appeal committee.
Speaking more generally, I am concerned at the considerable extra expense to which shooters will be put by the increased cost of a shotgun certificate and by the probable requirement that their gun be kept in an approved steel cabinet, the price of which I understand is upwards of £90. Shooting is not just a rich man's sport. My own shooting tenants are a syndicate of local tradesmen, fishermen and so forth to whom the additional outlay will not be peanuts. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because they are very good tenants and I do not want to lose them. Would it not be acceptable to keep a shotgun in a cupboard, chained and padlocked to the wall, with the fore-end removed?
For the additional reason of the enormous extra burden that the new licensing requirements will put on the police, might it not also be possible for firearm and shotgun certificates to be renewable every five years instead of every three years? I think that that would reduce the burden on the police and it would also reduce the financial burden on the shooter.
I am also concerned about visitors' permits under Clause 15, particularly as it affects Scotland where foreign shooting and stalking tenants make a vital

1081
contribution to the local economy in rural districts. I think that we should be very chary of complicating the procedures they have to go through, particularly in view of the fact that their activities are scarcely likely to contribute to the incidence of armed crime. It might be profitable, if it has not been done, to consider the regulations in other EC countries. While some, such as those in Spain, are very stringent, those in others are very simple. To shoot pig in Germany all you need is to be sent a game licence for the relevant clays by your host, and your own firearm certificate. I think that whole area needs further consideration.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has mentioned crossbows, and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, will be speaking about them, so I shall not elaborate on that subject save to say that I am in entire agreement with the noble Earls and that I hope the Government will prohibit the ownership of those horrible weapons.
Finally, I want to say a word about the question of firearms of historical interest and in museums. The case for an age exemption was recognised at Committee stage in another place. Standing Committee F amended Clause 1(2)(ab)—relating to self-loading and pump-action rifles—to exclude any such rifle which was manufactured before 1st January 1939. However, that age exemption was deleted by the government amendment at Report stage. Though the cut-off date for exemption is open to argument I think that we should be told why the Government have apparently rejected the principle of an age exemption and why they feel it necessary to prohibit any traditional pump-action rifle.
Regarding weapons held by museums and the schedule to the Bill, during the Committee discussion in another place on 25th February, at col. 232 of Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking that when the Bill was on Report an amendment would be introduced to the schedule. The amendment would make plain that the Secretary of State's power to impose conditions requiring a gun to be deactivated,
"does not extend to a power to require the deactivation or physical alteration of a firearm held by one of the museums".
The amendments put forward by the Home Secretary on Report, although going some way to meet this point, could lead to some ambiguity. Due to the guillotine procedure, no debate or response from the Minister was possible. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could confirm to the House that the statement made concerning deactivation or alteration of firearms held by museums defines the Government's intentions.
Lastly, I wonder what is the situation about collections of firearms in private houses which are open to the public. They do not seem to be covered in any way in the schedule.
1.27 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the detailed and fair way in which he presented the Bill. I think that he was honest in what he said. He stressed, I think quite rightly, that this is a matter of balance.
1082
This is very much a curate's egg type of Bill. The trouble with the curate's egg was that parts of it were bad. I do not think that I need remind Members of this House, and particularly my noble friend Lord Arran—who is just leaving, I hope not for that reason—of the effects of eating bad eggs because I understand that that was what led to the recent salmonella outbreak in your Lordships' House. I hope to take the salmonella virus out of the Bill, to improve it, and make sure that it ends up as a good egg at the end of the day and not as a curate's egg.
My noble friend Lord Swansea quoted the number of people who shoot for sport. I have no means of knowing whether his figures are right or wrong. I am quite sure that they are right. But I know that in my own county of North Yorkshire alone there are 24,500 shotgun certificate holders and 6,220 firearm certificate holders. All of them will be adversely affected by the Bill as a result of greater costs and more administration.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Nelson on his very moving maiden speech. I think that anyone who has been confronted by a sawn-off shotgun which is pointed at their stomach is perfectly justified in feeling as he does. However, I cannot believe that all members of the police force will be delighted by the enormous amount of extra work, administration and cost that will fall on them as a result of the Bill.
As we have heard from many speakers, even after all that extra cost, extra work and inconvenience to both the police and members of the legitimate shooting public, it is doubtful whether the objects of the Bill will be achieved. I was very impressed by the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerning the increase in crime since 1954, especially when one considers that during that period the Firearms Act 1968 was passed. That was the first time that anyone was required to have a firearm certificate. Despite the passing of that Act, which was intended to cope with the very problems which we are now trying to cope with again, there is little evidence that this kind of legislation works. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was quite right when he said that we had a duty to warn the public about this situation.
It seems to me that there are five major ways in which this Bill could be improved or in other words have the badness taken out of the egg. It could be improved by amendments to which I shall refer briefly today. There are also many minor amendments which I look forward to discussing during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I shall be very brief because I am fully aware of the time. The first of my five major points is the matter of the consultative committee about which many noble Lords have already spoken. I am quite certain that its powers and membership need to be strengthened. Despite the undertaking given by my noble friend in his opening speech, I should like to have it written on the face of the Bill that one of the members must have knowledge and experience of sport, recreation and competition. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Portsmouth, whose maiden speech I enjoyed enormously, for mentioning that matter.

1083
Secondly, I should like to see some change in the use of self-loading rifles, in particular in so far as it concerns disabled sportsmen and sportwomen —because I imagine that there are disabled sportswomen who practise this sport —so that they can take part in what is a perfectly justified sport. They cannot use bolt-action rifles because of the effect of the recoil. I think that disabled people should be allowed to continue with what up to now has been for them a perfectly legitimate and enjoyable sport.
Thirdly, I am worried about compensation for the Government's buy-back scheme which at the end of the day must be seen to be both fair and realistic.
Fourthly, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for mentioning a matter about which I also am very worried; namely, foreign visitors. Surely we should be encouraging foreign visitors to come to this country both to compete in target shooting and to shoot for sport. There seem to be numerous little discouragements in this Bill in respect of where they can and cannot shoot. I think that we should do everything to encourage them. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, these visitors are a source of enormous income especially in the upland areas. Obviously they not only directly pay for their shooting, tip the keepers and pay for their accommodation but very often their wives —and in some cases ladies who quite obviously are not their wives—do not like to go out shooting with their menfolk so they go off to spend money in the local market town or village and are a considerable source of income for the area. Therefore I should certainly like to see this part of the legislation amended to make it easier for them to come and spend their money and enjoy themselves in this country.
My last point, which was also mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, concerns the estate rifle. She has put the case for it extremely well. I feel that something should be written into the Bill in order to allow that to happen.
Of one thing I am certain: it is not right for this House to criticise the way in which this or any other Bill is handled in the other place. At the same time it seems to me that, vice versa, there is no reason for the other place to criticise or complain about the way in which we handle legislation in this Chamber. I believe that if ever there were a Bill that needed revising and there were a case for the revising Chamber to give it long, hard and detailed scrutiny, then this is the Bill. I can promise my noble friend on the Front Bench a very interesting and exciting time during the passage of this Bill through this House.
1.33 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, we have heard some fairly extreme views expressed already by noble Lords. I should like to take the middle line and give the Bill a guarded welcome. I certainly appreciate the need for such a Bill but, as my noble friend mentioned in his opening remarks, we must try to achieve a balance between the protection of the general public and the legitimate firearms' user. However, it is certain that the Bill as drafted at present is a lot better than it was when it first started out. I hope that noble Lords can make it an even better Bill along the lines that my noble friend Lord Swinton has just proposed. Apart
1084
from the obvious need to take the more potentially lethal or specialist weapons into the Section 5 category, it seems to me highly sensible—and I say this as a regular shotgun user—to tighten up the system on shotgun control. It was far too lax to have in existence a system in which virtually anybody could acquire a shotgun certificate and consequently buy such a weapon without justifying the use and reason for ownership. Noble Lords have also mentioned the desire to try to quantify the number of shotguns in existence and that must surely be a step in the right direction.
There are many parts of the Bill which I support but there are also a number of passages which give me considerable concern. I do not propose to go into too much detail about them at this stage. The main point that I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention is that no matter how much legislation is introduced to try to control the illegal use of firearms, unless each police authority has officers who are qualified to deal in such matters the law will not be effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly made the point that we must look after the interests of the police when dealing with any form of legislation, but on this matter I believe that the police have a duty to look after themselves. Whether they are dealing with rifles, shotguns, pistols or any other form of weapon, the police must have the technical knowledge to deal with each type and know exactly what are its capabilities and for what it is generally used. It also seems to me to be vital that the officers concerned should be aware of the weapons that are required for the various sports and activities in which the applicant will be participating. In order to achieve that I believe that a prerequisite of any effective legislation must be that the memorandum of guidance—if that is the correct term for it—sent to the chief officers of police from the Home Office must include a requirement for the presence of such qualified officers. My information is that at the moment quite clearly that is not the case. Furthermore, such guidance from the Home Office must be precise in order to avoid inconsistencies between the various police forces when dealing with the issue and renewal of certificates.
I welcome the reference made by my noble friend to the fact that there is likely to be a new memorandum and that it is to be made public. However, it is certain that if this fails to be done effectively it is bound to lead to confusion and inequality in the way in which applications are dealt with by the police. That can only drive a wedge between the legitimate shooting public and the police force which everyone I am sure would agree would be a total tragedy.
I should also like to suggest that in order that the police can comprehend more fully the use of firearms with regard to the various sports, it would help considerably if they could liaise more closely with those organisations which have the real expertise in these matters. I refer in particular to the National Rifle Association, the British Deer Society, the British Field Sports Society and indeed the Army, who can give more advice than anybody on the technical use of weaponry.

1085
Much reference has already been made to the Firearms Consultative Committee, which I welcome as I believe other noble Lords have welcomed it. However, I agree most strongly with those who have expressed the view that it must have more teeth. Furthermore, I should like to see it written into the Bill that on that committee there should be experts who are qualified to talk about shooting and competition shooting. There seems to me to be little point in having an expert on technical weaponry if there is no one to appreciate how those weapons are to be used and in what circumstances.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Swinton mentioned a visitor's permit. I do not want to add very much to what they said other than to say that I appreciate their views. As the Bill stands at the moment I fear that there will be a lack of flexibility in this matter. What concerns me is this. Let us suppose that a group of people come to this country for bird or competition shooting and at the last minute—by which I mean only two or three days' notice—someone drops out and is replaced by someone else. Will the system as envisaged in the Bill give the flexibility to allow for a change in personnel under those circumstances? I should like to ask my noble friend to give that question some thought.
Finally, and again I believe that this point has already been mentioned by several noble Lords, there is the question of compensation. In my view it is simply not enough. I accept in his opening remarks my noble friend mentioned that the Government figures included the retailers' mark-up, but I honestly do not believe that this will be enough to satisfy those people who in good faith will be handing their weapons in. Perhaps I may quote some specific weapons. The Browning 308 Match has a second-hand value of£500. I believe that there are quite a number of these in existence. The Colt AR15—very much favoured by the practical rifle shooter—has a secondhand value of £300 to £400. Under the present legislation, there will not be proper compensation for guns of that value. I wonder what will happen to them. Will they end up on the black market? I believe that there is a real danger that that will happen.
Finally, on that same question, there are those who have bought pump action guns since 22nd September 1987 in good faith on the understanding that they would not be prohibited under this new Act. Since this situation has now been reversed, they are likely to have a pretty raw deal.
I accept that the Government have to be seen to be doing something positive after the tragedy of Hungerford and the various other incidents that have been cited by noble Lords, and that they are bound to take heed of the pressures from police for tighter controls on the use of firearms. But legislation must be seen to be effective and fair from the point of view of the legitimate firearms users. In order to achieve these objectives, I feel that there is still a considerable amount of work to do on this Bill.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, this Bill has triggered off much public concern about firearms. The more I look at the present position of the regulations on their use,
1086
the more I wonder whether this Bill will achieve its real purpose of determining the unauthorised user. I realise that it cannot; but if it passes in its present form, it will erode still further the rights of responsible individuals, apart from complicating the function of the police and making business more difficult for companies competing in the international firearms market.
It is a patchy piece of legislation. It exposes all the cracks in the Firearms Act 1968. The time has come for a new Act based on new practices and developments in firearms, taking into account the way we live, work and trade. The road to 1992 to Europe is now being paved; and this must be reflected in our legislation. However, we are faced with this Bill and are I believe in control. There is no other Bill; and although I am sure that we can improve it, I still think that we are missing an opportunity to introduce measures which reflect the big steps forward which are now being taken in firearms technology.
I am a shotgun owner—licensed, of course. I was a gunnery specialist in the Royal Navy. I am a council member of the Defence Manufacturers' Association, representing this House in competing for the Vizianagram Trophy at Bisley. I suppose I can therefore also claim to be a marksman. While marksmanship has been relatively unaffected by the march of technology—and it appears that the Government would like to keep it that way—firearms technology has leapt forward and we need new ground rules for it.
To illustrate what I am saying, the close assault weapons now on the world markets are very light, with a very high rate of fire, very short barrelled, and often smooth-bore weapons, using smart ammunition and sighting devices. The Irish Defence Force did not buy the SA80 rifle. They bought the Steyr Masnnlicher 5·56 mm army universal gun, with a standard barrel length of 20 inches—which in Clause 6 of the Bill is now a prohibited length. The Pilkington night-sight is now used on the SA80, turning night into day, but it is not a prohibited accessory. A laser-fitted SA80 is now used by the British Army for training. It is a direct energy discharge device but it is not prohibited. Yet the stun gun discharges a noxious thing, contrary to Section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act. Is it an electromagnetic gun, as being developed for star wars, or is it not? It uses only plain old electricity from a small torch battery, but it produces an electromagnetic effect.
Heckler and Koch in conjunction with Olins in the States have produced an ambidextrous semiautomatic shotgun with a 10-round magazine firing 240 rounds per minute with a 19½mm cartridge. Left-handers, I suppose, will love it. But it is prohibited.
We have reached a position where companies are not required to apply for firearms dealership for selling powerful accessories such as night sights; but, if they wish to, they have to apply because of the mounting clip, which is a component part of a lethal barrelled weapon. As flash limiters and silencers are the only recognised accessory under the Act, the advanced accessory makers are penalised by having to observe regulations which have no relevance to public safety and peace.

1087
The English Electric Valve Company at Chelmsford has no weapons on site so far as I know, and is the leading designer of image intensifiers, and, in order to ensure that it meets the purpose for which it is designed—that is the image intensifier the company must be registered as a firearms dealer and have a firearms certificate for the mounting clip. The Essex Constabulary under the 1968 Act judged the company from the standpoint of public safety and peace. But under Clause 12 of this Bill, they will be required to judge whether they engage in business as a firearms dealer to a substantial extent, or as an essential part of another trade, business or profession. How will they do it? Perhaps they will look at the company report, or perhaps they might even call in auditors. If the applicant is foreign-owned or controlled, they will have some difficulty about doing this and foreign dealers are not identified in the Home Office statistical bulletin. I have seen the bulletin for the register of firearms dealers for 1985 and 1986, but apparently the figures for 1987 are not available. I wonder how many more registered firearms dealers there now are.
Assessing the business is a new role for the police and it would be scandalous if the English Electric Valve Company was refused a dealership. They are big and can look after themselves. But what about small firms trying to make a track record for themselves? The police have wide powers of discretion in this matter and could refuse application.
I have been able to read some of the early draft guidance notes for the police for registering applicants. But even in February 1988 there is no guidance on how to assess the applicants' business, the criteria still being risks to public safety and peace. They have wide powers of discretion. They are required to assess as well an applicant's knowledge and experience, yet no professional qualifications are needed for firearms' dealerships.
The question of registration at exhibitions needs attention. How many exhibitors have had to pay fees to the Surrey Constabulary to exhibit at the British Army Equipment Exhibition which is taking place next week, where items such as night sights, and firearms, will be exhibited?
The danger is that the police could frustrate the legitimate firearms business because they could not judge the technology connections. It is important to resolve the uncertainties because the new subsection in Clause 12 is capable of misinterpretation. Either the subsection should be better defined or much more explicit guidance must be given to the police. I would ask my noble friend whether he will be prepared to consider suitable amendments and whether he can assure the House that the guidance to the police in their new role of assessing the extent of the business will cover the issues that I have raised. I am glad that he will be able to make a copy available to the House at Committee stage. That will be very helpful.
The police are constrained by the bad definition of "firearm" in the 1968 Act. Also, the words "competent parts", I believe, need redefining to differentiate between those parts which are incidental to the design, such as gunmetal screws, and those which are crucial to performance, such as control
1088
mechanisms, trigger mechanisms and that sort of thing.
I am concerned too about the way Clause 16 will work in relation to the proposed EC directive No. 8356/1987 on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. By our definition a firearm is a lethal barrel weapon; by EC definition a weapon is any firearm, sidearm or mace. In Eurospeak the Mace on the Woolsack is a weapon. We have perhaps some evidence to show that the Mace in the other place might well fall into that category. But your Lordships are very much more restrained and here it merits a less aggressive definition. I am sure the Yeoman Usher today did not realise that he was carrying a weapon. I am happy that he is a responsible person and that we can see him undertake that task responsibly. I hope therefore that my noble friend can give an assurance that Clause 16 takes into account the EC directive, as 1992 is creeping up on us very quickly.
I should like to mention one other matter about the consultative committee. The Defence Manufacturers' Association has 25 members who are registered firearms' dealers. There is much expert opinion in that quarter. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider represenatations from the association when the consultative committee is set up.
We are taking the line of least resistance with the Bill. Technology has advanced so much and we should be enabling individuals to benefit. We should not always take the easy way out and go for a ban. The stun gun has arrived. Laser simulators and laser ignition are here. Night can be turned into day. We have lightweight materials with the quality of steel; we have rapid fire ambidextrous weapons. But a licence is still needed for a gunmetal component part which has no reference to the performance of a weapon.
I do not believe that this is an ideal Bill. I hope that my noble friend can give assurances that firearms dealers—who are plainly not all just gunsmiths any more—will not be penalised by lack of proper definition and by the discretionary powers of the police who now have to judge a business in addition to dealing with security. Weapons are only dangerous when one forgets that they are designed with safety in mind.
1.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should first like to say that due to the late stage at which Northern Ireland was brought into the Bill no consultation took place with the RUC and Northern Ireland shooting organisations during the drafting stage. That was a most unfortunate omission when one realises that we in Northern Ireland have by far the greatest experience of strict gun controls.
I should like to mention some of the provisions contained in the Bill from a practical point of view as I see them. I shoot in Northern Ireland and Great Britain; I also run a tourist business for foreign clients and I am one of the gillies or stalkers.
The proposed numbering and identifying of every shotgun held on a person's certificate seems to be

1089
causing a great deal of alarm. I feel that to a great extent this is undue concern. In Northern Ireland this system has worked very well since, I believe, 1926. It cannot he unreasonable for the police to know who holds individual shotguns and where they are situated. It is believed that a large number of stolen shotguns are not reported as such. Quite clearly if found, reported or not, or having been used in a criminal act, there can be no trace of their origin—or at the very least it will take a long time to ascertain it—without a national register of shotguns. I support that idea.
However, it now appears that the likelihood of all shotguns being declared is slim. At least that is what the press in general and the shooting press in particular seem to think. I feel that the reason is this: if an amendment for the registration of shotguns had been introduced on its own the owners would not have been worried. However, the Bill contains so many other seemingly undesirable restrictions, seen as panic measures, that individual shotgun owners fear some further action at a later date to reduce the number of shotguns held. Let us remember that without going through a troublesome appeal it is basically up to chief constables of varying knowledge and characters and with little time to spare to grant certificates or not to do so. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers what action police forces can be expected to take if many shotguns are not registered and what would be the consequences?
I now come to the problem of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, other than 22 rim fire. The Government seem to be treating this issue in black and white terms. However there has to be a considerable grey area where there is room for compromise. We have heard many reasons for leaving the situation as it is. But there is and must be room for an in-between position.
I take semi-automatic shotguns first. I personally should back a ban on these weapons being used for game shooting except by invalids or such-like groups incapable of using side-by-side or over-and-under shotguns. Landowners and gamekeepers could also be licensed to use them on vermin or pests. In the clay pigeon world, women and invalids especially find them easier to use.
There should be a compromise on semi-automatic rifles. Deer shooters are among the most careful and trustworthy group of enthusiasts. Why not allow semi-automatic rifles to be purchased for this sport or at least permit people already holding them to continue to do so? They are not very popular anyway. And there are not many of them. These weapons, again, are particularly suitable for women and invalids.
Semi-automatic rifles are popular for target shooting. Indeed, in the relatively new international sport of practical shooting they are essential. I believe that it may one day become an Olympic sport. It is a growing sport and apparently there are already 150 or more clubs. The semi-automatic weapons required for target shooting could quite easily be kept in military armouries when not in use. Of course it will cost a small amount of money, but we all have to pay for our sport to a greater or lesser extent. The amount could not compare with the cost of a string of polo ponies or skis and ski-ing holidays. It would not be very much.
1090
Can the Government not introduce selective licensing of semi-automatic shotguns and rifles as I suggest? It would entail little or no extra cost and effort on the part of our police forces. I believe that the Government have missed the opportunity to bring in a couple of useful and important measures. The first is an additional measure concerning visitors. At present a visitor to Great Britain can apply for a visitor's permit to use a shotgun or a rifle, even though he may not hold a similar permit in his country of origin or in any other country for that matter. I believe that from a safety and animal welfare point of view that is wrong. He may be totally unpractised in weapon handling and safety; he is often likely to be an inaccurate shot especially when, as the Germans say, he gets "the hunting fever" or becomes over excited. It believe that those who are not practised in a similar sport with a similar weapon should not be permitted to make their beginners' mistakes in our country. We are not a testing ground for foreigners. The question was put to me, "What about our novices and young people?" There is no problem about that. The practice time on targets or clay pigeons can be for as long as one likes. But a visitor does not have such a long time to become a safe or accurate weapon handler.
The Bill would also provide an excellent opportunity to introduce a measure concerning insurance for firearm accidents. Although many people have third-party insurance covering the use of guns I believe that there are many more who do not. Could we not take one leaf out of the Germans' book? In Germany, when one pays for one's certificate or permit, the fee automatically gives one a large personal insurance. I believe that that would be a most welcome move were it introduced here. It must be done centrally for the sake of simplicity and to ensure that there is no way round it. That is the minimum protection from shooters in this country required by those who do not shoot.
In conclusion I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government look at the Bill again and ultimately produce a Bill that may be more workable. I know that law-abiding sportsmen will support it and help it to function.
2.2 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I have only one reason for speaking in this debate. It is what one might call a constituency reason in that I am Lord Hungerford. I was on a holiday on my boat when the terrible tragedy occurred and at first I could not believe it. Why should such a terrible thing happen in Hungerford? We know of the many terrible incidents which happen in inner cities. We are told, usually by the Opposition, that they are due to high unemployment, bad housing, terrible surroundings and the lack of honest things to do to pass one's time. None of that is true in Hungerford which is a sweet little town. It is surrounded by beautiful public parklands. It has a charming High Street which leads down the hill to the River Kennet with excellent fishing. The Kennet and Avon Canal has been refurbished and now has good boating. All the sports and so forth that one might expect to find in the countryside are available in and around Hungerford.

1091
Why should such a thing happen in Hungerford? If it can happen in Hungerford what can happen elsewhere?
I should like to quote a passage from Chaucer; it is one which many noble Lords may know. It is:
"If golde rust what shall yrone do?"
If the gold begins to rust what kind of rusting will be happening to the iron? If such things can happen in Hungerford what can happen in our inner cities where things are so much worse? I am horrified by what I see as the possibility of the rising use of firearms about which we have heard a great deal.
I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I largely agree with what he said. I shall listen carefully during the Committee stage because I believe not only that the Bill should be made stronger but that it should be made stronger in a number of other directions which have not yet been incorporated. I do not wish to speak for long as against noble Lords with great gun interests.
I have had guns and fired them; I have had guns fired at me; I have been hit. However, I shall not now shoot because I cannot bear the idea of looking at the creatures that I have killed. I am a carnivore; I will shoot for the pot. I am an omnivore and as a science fiction writer I know that the omnivore will rule the universe for the simple reason that he will eat everything. Therefore I cannot be said to be a pacifist; I shall shoot to defend myself, my wife and my country. However, I cannot see why we need such a high level of guns as we have in this country. Indeed, there are guns which no one should have and there are certain people who should never have any gun. Surely the legislation must move towards following those two lines.
I thoroughly support the purposes of the Bill and I shall thoroughly support any amendment which goes in either of those two directions.
2.6 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to follow the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, because I cannot agree with a great deal of what he has said. I believe that the Bill is basically unnecessary because, by and large, it will not achieve what it has set out to achieve. Nevertheless, it may well be the better of two evils. if it is possible to obtain some such reasonable and acceptable legislation it should prevent possibly more prohibitive and draconian measures from being imposed upon the legitimate and law-abiding gun user by the extremists who wish to ban the use of guns altogether.
The White Paper which preceded the Bill indicated two essential themes. The first was to protect the interests of those who use firearms. The second was to ensure the safety of the general public from the criminal use of firearms. Whatever the rights and interests of those who previously used such weapons no one can honestly suggest that, after the enactment of the Bill as it stands, they will be anything but worse off. Nor, in my view, does the Bill do anything to ensure the safety of the general public from the irresponsible and the criminal.
1092
Much has already been said about the problems in preventing the kind of awful incident which happened in Hungerford. Much has already been said to support the view that the Bill will not prevent the criminal use of firearms. Although I could say a great deal more to support that view I believe that to do so would waste your Lordships' time. There is also some justification for commenting on our national behaviour or (should I say?) lack of national behaviour and the right punishment for the right crime; that is to say capital punishment or corporal punishment. However, again I suggest that this is probably not the right time to discuss that.
I believe that this legislation is of little use. I think it was conceived by hysteria and out of haste and has only become politically expedient because of media and police pressure.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. He appears to suggest that the Government have behaved wrongly because they have given in to police pressure. Is it not right that the Government should listen to the views of the police when armed crime is being discussed?
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I find it difficult to answer the noble Lord. With respect, I believe that the police pressure is in many cases misplaced and misunderstood. It has been suggested by other speakers today that the police do not have within their ranks people who sufficiently understand firearms. if there were members of the police force who understood more about that, then I should go along with what the noble Lord has said.
Because I believe that this Bill may well be the better of two evils, I believe that we must go along with it. However, I should first like to ask a few questions about one particular clause which has to do with visitors. Here I have to declare an interest because living as I do in the Isle of Man every time I cross the Irish Sea I am, according to this Bill, a visitor. The same applies to those living in the Channel Islands.
It is quite likely that as soon as this revised firearms legislation is in place in the UK, the Manx authorities may well consider revising their own legislation to be based on that which will exist here, and possibly the Channel Islands will also do the same. In the Isle of Man we already have a Section 1 firearms licensing system which is similar to that over here, and both Guernsey and Jersey have a very similar system. Therefore, it seems logical that the Manx and Channel Islands firearms certificates should be recognised by the UK licensing authorities and I suggest that that should be so.
If and when the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have Section 2 shotgun legislation which is acceptable to the UK, licences and permits issued by the island authorities should be recognised in the UK in the same way as UK licences will be recognised in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
I should like to quote from comments obtained from the British Association of Shooting and Conservation from their members in the islands:
"Serious implications for Isle of Man clay pigeon shooting—extra costs of shooting in Great Britain will preclude some shooters from

1093
travelling for competitions … Proposals will increase the administrative burden on police … Proposals will deter visiting sportsmen—especially those to major shooting events, including Bisley … For those sportsmen not knowing anybody in the UK the requirement for sponsoring residents will prevent them from visiting Britain … Many Isle of Man sportsmen compete in major events in Britain, including Bisley, Inter Island Games, Commonwealth Games"—
and perhaps I should mention that we have a Commonwealth Games gold medal winner,
"—Clauses 12 and 13 will prove a retrograde step to any Manx sportsmen wishing to compete at national or international level".
There are many other remarks like that.
Notwithstanding the situation in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, I suggest that a visitor's permit is issued for a period of 12 months, and not six months as in the Bill. That would overcome some of the problems from the many other parts of the world besides the islands and would also save the issuing authorities a great deal of trouble and expense.
Delving further into visitors' problems, one must ask: how long will it take to obtain a permit? If a visitor knows no sponsor in the United Kingdom, to whom can he apply for a permit? Is a visitor's permit for a firearm or shotgun issued in, say, Sussex, valid in Suffolk or Scotland? When visitors enter this country with firearms do they actually need to have the permit in their possession and present it at the port of entry? If it takes three weeks to deliver a permit to the United States, for example, what happens if for some reason the visitor can be given only a few days' notice to join a shooting team? I ask that the shooting world be given sufficient notice of the enactment of this Bill; otherwise there may well be a number of visitors in the country holding guns illegally.
There are many thousands of sportsmen who come to this country to compete in some of the most prestigious competitions in the world. That applies to both shotguns and firearms. There are many thousands of sportsmen who also come to this country to shoot game and to stalk. This country is one of the last bastions of sporting shooting in the world and the countryside is much better off for it both financially and conservationally. Therefore, it is important that we do not discourage visitors who come here to shoot by making the regulations too restrictive.
Finally, I believe one of the more pleasant tasks my noble friend on the Front Bench must undertake when he has the time is to visit the Isle of Man. I can assure him he will be very welcome.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Wynford: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to the situation created by the move into the prohibited weapons class of self-loading rifles. These rifles are the basic army weapon of today. They have been in existence, as I believe my noble friend Lord Swansea said, for 40 years. What I have to say bears a little on that. Other noble Lords have spoken to some extent about self-loading rifles, but only sporadically. I wish to emphasise differently some of the points made.
First in importance is that this relegation to the prohibited area strikes at the very heart of our civilian
1094
skill-at-arms standing in the world. I believe that that is not an overstatement. This standing can be traced back through our history like a golden thread, back to the archers at Agincourt and up to the present day. We have been exceptional in that way among the nations. Great Britain has always excelled at these skills and they have stood us in good stead in many an emergency through the ages. Who is to say that that is old hat? The past 40 years have shown us a sad succession of emergencies to which we must add rising terrorism and the continuing activity of the IRA.
At present there are about 150 rifle and pistol clubs. They vary greatly in size and memberships range from between 50 to several hundred. I know that in my own county of Dorset they vary to that extent. The clubs have full-bore, safety authorised ranges. Some are underground and others are in the open air. The sport is attracting swiftly increasing numbers of all ages, not just old men like myself. I have witnessed some events. I had the strong impression of very professional and extremely knowledgeable people, proud of their skills. They are responsible people and seekers after excellence for both their weapon and the way in which they handle it. For many it is truly their hobby; for some it is their principal and only hobby.
The club I saw consisted of 50 members including one woman, two policemen and a young man of 18 years of age being instructed by his father. They hold correct licences and value them like gold. A motoring offence or any laxity found in storage arrangements and precautions will lead to the loss of the licence. The total of such members in the UK is probably about 50,000 —the figure quoted by the Shooters Rights Association.
These clubs shoot according to a variety of disciplines. Perhaps the most popular is practical shooting. This is highly competitive and physically testing for those taking part who move along the range and fire at moving targets, falling plates and so on. There is a very wide variety of competitive shooting, not only in the UK but also in Europe. The UK always occupies a high place due to its long experience in the training and the know-how required. We lead the world. We have done so for a long time.
Perhaps I may emphasise something said by my noble friend Lord Swansea who spoke about the disabled and others unsuited to bolt-action rifle operation. This is a very big point. The number of such people interested in these disciplines is increasing probably rather faster than among the wholly fit. The recoil is very much less with the self-loading rifle. A man without legs or, like myself, with one arm; a woman similarly affected; someone with small bones and of no great weight; young people; all can operate with a self-loading rifle whereas they would be unable to do so with a bolt-action weapon.
They have to perform a different kind of task to the practical shooter. They cannot move in the same way but they practise target disciplines of which there is very great variety. A new field is opened up where such people can excel, developing the urge to achieve ever-increasing excellence on level terms. If such

1095
weapons are allowed to pass into the prohibited class in Clause 1 of the Bill, unamended, all this fruitful competition must come to an end. Our skills built up over many years will inevitably wither away. It is no exaggeration to say that the development of firearms' technology over the years has come in the main, and in the first instance, largely from civilians such as the people I have been describing —Forsyth, Colt, Maxim, Luger, Browning, Metford, Garard and Stoner are just some of them. All this damage to our hard won high-standing has been triggered off by ill-considered and over-hasty action in the wake of a police error which seeks to make scapegoats of our skill-at-arms, experts of tomorrow—the instance, and the only instance of a maniac killing with a self-loading rifle.
Self-loading rifles are not the favourite tools of crime; far from it. Some figures have been quoted. In 1986 there were 3,177 offences, of which only 27 were with rifles. That is 0·86 per cent. of the total. It does not mean that those were all self-loading rifles. A very great number of those rifles, if not all, were probably·22 in calibre. Records do not record the breakdown of those 27. One wonders why not.
We have touched on the compensation proposal. It is disgraceful that the citizen should not be fully paid for his honourable property. Other noble Lords have drawn attention to this point. I feel that the present proposal is entirely inadequate. Whatever the mistakes of the police or of others in the past, we can help to restore public confidence. If we can do that we are doing something useful. We should explore the limitation of built-in magazine size and/or the custody of weapons. I was going to say that police stations and military establishments should be used, but that is not practicable and it would be dangerous to concentrate the weapons. We can help with more comprehensive licensing conditions and/or even stricter spot inspections of clubs and their memberships—anything to avoid the obliteration of these skilled people.
If we fail to gain acceptance of the self-loading rifle, our army's general issue weapon, we shall fall out of the running in competitive shooting and, much more importantly, technological expertise and inventiveness will gradually fall away. This is the nub of the problem. This is a national danger. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough made special mention of this. Meanwhile, unauthorised types of weapons will continue to be available to the irresponsible through the market which has always supplied them. The criminal and the terrorist will continue while the police are dogging the innocent.
I fully endorse the consultative committee. I agree that it is important, but it must have teeth. It must not be the lackey of the Secretary of State. It must have power to make proper suggestions. I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will pursue this theme in Committee.
2.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I very much regret that I was unable to attend your Lordships' House last year when Clause 3(2) of the Crossbows Act 1987 was passed, which prevents anyone under the age of 17 possessing a crossbow with a draw weight of over
1096
1.4 kilograms or 3 lbs. That would indeed be a toy compared with the crossbow used for hunting which has a draw weight of at least 34 kilograms or 75 lbs.
No sportsman, farmer, rough shooter, gamekeeper or archer would have anything to do with a crossbow. Everyone to whom I have spoken, including many Members of your Lordships' House, would like to have it banned. The projectile called a bolt is usually 14 inches long and is made of aluminium or fibreglass. It makes no noise and it is for that reason that it is the ideal weapon for the poacher, rustler or wanton killer of farm animals and game. There are several makes available—to any adult—and the commando crossbow is the most powerful, having a maximum draw weight of 100 kilograms or 220 lbs. Such a weapon would have a killing range of at least 50 yards, with considerable penetrating force.
I have passed to my noble friend Lord Ferrers a catalogue giving all the details and showing many steel crossbows that are sophisticated weapons. Some of them are even fitted with telescopic sights, which are held and fired from the shoulder in the same way as a rifle or shotgun. The gamekeeper or sportsman culling deer or other animals uses rifle bullets which are designed to flatten out or shatter on impact, thereby so damaging vital organs that the animal is killed as quickly and as painlessly as possible. On the other hand, the bolt of a crossbow does not flatten out on impact and therefore does not have the same killing power as the bullet, but is invariably lodged in the animal. Moreover, as it takes quite a few seconds to reload a crossbow the hunter has little chance of a second shot and the poor animal escapes, usually dying some time later in agony.
Horses, ponies, sheep and deer have been found still alive with crossbow bolts lodged in some part of their bodies, resulting in these poor animals having to be put down. Geese and other game birds have also been seen alive with bolts through their bodies.
I am most grateful for the notes which I received today from my noble friend Lord Ferrers in which he points out that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 killing or taking a wild bird or animal with a crossbow is subject to quite a heavy fine. That is one thing. However, what concerns me more than anything else—and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for supporting me in this is that a person over the age of 17, even with a criminal record, can go and buy these things provided he can write a letter and send a cheque. That is what I am really against and I think there should be some restriction on the purchase of this highly dangerous weapon.
From my investigation into the provisions of the Bill, I think that the Government are placing our wonderful police in an impossible position. I make that sweeping statement because I am quite certain that neither the Government, nor the police, have any idea of the many types of weapons that are changing hands each week. For example, there is the well-known firm of Weller and Dufty Limited of Birmingham which advertises itself as "Europe's largest arms auctioneers". The firm has a sale about every six weeks throughout the year. Further, there are within the United Kingdom about 10 top gun

1097
auctioneers, resulting in about 1,000 weapons of some kind or another changing hands every week throughout the year.
I gave my noble friend Lord Ferrers the November 1987 catalogue of Weller and Dufty Limited, in which there are for sale modern arms and ammunition; namely, shotguns, sporting and military rifles, revolvers, automatic pistols, machine guns, modern muzzle-loading weapons, together with parts and accessories—a total of 1,358 items. Who buys machine guns? I give that as one example. So far, I have not mentioned one firearms dealer and there are about 850 of them throughout the country.
A firearms dealer or auctioneer buying or selling within that trade does not need to inform the police of a transaction. A firearms dealer has to inform the police of any sale or purchase of a weapon to or from the holder of a shotgun or firearms certificate or under the provisions of Clauses 4 and 16. I think that that is the case with an auctioneer, but I am not sure. Surely it is time for the Government to take advantage of modern technology and have all forms of certificates, gun licences and dealers' licences and particulars of weapons put on a computer at, let us say, Swansea, in the same way as motor vehicle and driving licences are now kept and issued.
Let me reverse the position for a moment. Let us suppose it to be up to the chief constable to decide whether we should be allowed a driving licence or a motor vehicle licence in the same way as he alone can decide whether we are allowed a shotgun or firearms certificate. How would we feel then? As some noble Lords have said, we cannot legislate against the maniac behind a gun any more than we can legislate against the maniac behind the wheel of a motor car. Although chief constables throughout the country will know how many firearms are held by individuals under Section 5 of the principal Act, at present they have no idea of the number of firearms held by auctioneers or firearms dealers or the number of organisations there are within their areas.
I appreciate what the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, said in his excellent maiden speech when he mentioned that point. Equally, I enjoyed listening to the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, in his very nice speech, but I take a rather different line from him. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough made a similar point. Perhaps I may give the House an example. A Member of your Lordships' House has been helpful to me in my research. He has a private collection of over 40 guns, pistols and so on. He is a lot older than I am. What will happen when he dies and that collection comes up for auction?
Clause 18 amends Section 6 of the principal Act and restricts the movement of arms and ammunition to Northern Ireland. Would it not be better if the clause and the section were to restrict the movement of arms and ammunition across the Irish Sea, thereby controlling the traffic in arms both ways?
Much has been said about security. One of the matters that concerns me is the security of rifles and pistols belonging to clubs as provided under Clause 14. Many clubs do not have their own premises, which means that at least some members must take
1098
the weapons back to their homes. I believe there is a Home Office approved cabinet but I cannot find any note on the statute or statutory instrument where that matter is laid down.
Rifles can easily be disabled by removing the bolt. Shotguns can be disabled by removing the fore end, as has already been mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Pistols are much more difficult to disable, and they concern me more than anything else. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, has just said. I should not like anything to happen to clubs but I am concerned about those clubs which perhaps do not have any premises of their own. Members just go out to Bisley to have a practice shoot. I feel we need to take great care that the weapons they use—quite legitimately—do not get into the wrong hands.
Lastly, and here I am on dangerous ground because it is not covered in the Bill, I turn to registered firearms dealers under Section 3 of the 1968 Act. On the grounds of security, I should like the Government to consider dividing the registration into two separate categories by introducing a licence permitting mail order firms and others to sell shotgun cartridges and rim-fire ammunition but not the ironmongery side of the business, for want of a better word.
The problem as I see it is that in order to be able to sell ammunition, the trader has to obtain a firearms dealer's licence which then permits him to sell or repair shotguns, rifles, etc. I fully understand that people living in out of the way places like Cornwall or the islands of Scotland must be able to obtain ammunition through the post. However, guns, rifles, pistols, the ironmongery side of the business, should not be obtainable through mail order firms, many of which are only interested in selling and have no local knowledge such as most firearms dealers have. With most of the firearms dealers whom I have known, if somebody suspicious comes along they ring up the local police or try to find out something about him. But all mail order firms are only interested in selling. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this point even if I am slightly out of order in respect of this Bill.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am delighted to start with the pleasant task of congratulating my noble friends Lord Nelson and Lord Portsmouth on their maiden speeches. It is a welcome relief to do so because what I now have to say on this legislation gives me no pleasure at all. I feel that we have to try to get the need for firearms legislation into perspective. In 1973 there was a panic and a Green Paper was produced. Fortunately, that Green Paper came to your Lordships' House and was so debunked that we heard nothing more on the subject for 15 years. During that debate my noble friend Lord Swansea and I both emphasised the need for an advisory committee. Had a committee been set up, we could by now have had infinitely better firearms legislation. The problem is that this is an emotive subject on something which should be largely technical.

1099
Now we have a further panic resulting from Hungerford which, along with marked misinformation fed out over this episode, has resulted, not surprisingly, in the Government feeling that they must produce legislation to allay the fears of the general public, particularly those who know little or nothing about weapons. Had the promised consultation taken place with those who know about these weapons, such as the British Shooting Sports Council, there is little doubt that we could have had a far better Bill and certainly far less aggravation.
The firearms lobby is a most reasonable body and only too ready to co-operate with governments of any persuasion to produce reasonable and fair legislation on firearms. The existing legislation under the 1968 Act is now full of flaws so that we have a Bill attempting to add to a bad Act, and all this brought about by false surmise arising from Hungerford.
The Opposition fell into the trap just as much as the Government, so there is no need for anyone on the other side to feel cheerful about my remarks. I think that I am correct in saying that we already have some of the most severe firearms regulations in Europe, even though the German regulations are possibly more draconian. Now an attempt is being made to impose substantial extra burdens on those who wish or need to hold firearms or shotguns.
It was only when amendments were moved in another place by someone who had some of the technical expertise required on the subject that some of the errors in the proposed legislation were demonstrated. Members on all sides in the other place, as well as the media, began to realise that the legislation was wrong. It was difficult for those who had committed themselves to backtrack. It was not only Government Ministers who were in that position but also Shadow Ministers and the media. It was necessary for the Government to put on a three line Whip and the Opposition were given the opportunity to torment the Government with an all night sitting. Therefore, it will not be possible to suggest that anything we do in this House will be going against an elected majority in another place.
We have another chance. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put the matter more eloquently than I can. We have a chance to do what the country wants and the kind of thing for which this House is highly regarded. Although we can correct some of the errors, I fear that we can never make this into good legislation. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will have an open mind. There is much that we can do that will greatly improve the Bill.
First, let it be made clear that had this legislation been in operation before Hungerford it would probably have made no difference to what occurred. As I understand it, if the 1986 Act had been properly implemented in the Hungerford area the current legislation would have been adequate. Great play has been made of the fact that a Kalashnikov rifle was used. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, Ryan shot fewer people with an SLR than he did with a pistol. Under the proposed legislation, he would have been legally entitled to have that pistol in any case. Furthermore, he fired only one or two shots at each of his victims. Therefore, the fact that he was
1100
using a self-loading rifle is largely irrelevant. He could have done the same damage with almost any rifle. Hungerford should not enter into the equation at all. It is nothing more than a red herring and an excuse for empire building by the Home Office.
The proposed legislation will undoubtedly be a considerable imposition on the legitimate, honest firearms or shotgun owner. However, what effect will it have on the criminal who wishes to use a firearm? That question was put at the police demonstration which my noble friend kindly arranged for us last Tuesday. The answer was that it would have very little effect initially but that more and more weapons would be taken out of circulation as time went by.
I wonder if the consequences of that proposal are appreciated. It means that more and more legitimate owners or would-be owners will be penalised—that the effect on the criminal fraternity will be nil or at best marginal over a period of years. There will be no diminution of the number of firearms used in crimes by restricting their control and possession by legitimate users. The pistol has been the subject of the strictest control for 60 years and yet it is one of the most commonly used weapons in violent crime.
I remind my noble friend that over a million people are licensed to hold either a shotgun or a rifle. Many of those people are very angry about this legislation, and rightly so. The largest proportion of that lobby are clay pigeon shooters. When one takes into account their friends and relations, that adds up to a large number of votes. When they find out what the Government have been trying to do, they will not be convinced that their vote is safe in the hands of the Conservative Party. Why are guns used in this country to be so severely penalised? My noble friend is looking round. However, he should ponder the fact.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend. However, I looked round to make certain that I was hearing what he was saying. It came as some slight surprise. I believe that he will see in due course that it was a bit exaggerated.
Lord Burton: My Lords, we shall be told that a gun is a lethal weapon. However, so is a car. There are far more people killed and injured every year by cars than by guns. I wonder how many people—apart from those shot by the police—have been killed or injured accidentally by guns over the past few years. I suppose that there have been some accidents caused by people wrongfully leaving a loaded gun lying about. There may be a few who have picked up an accidental pellet. However, I suspect that the number killed, let alone injured, is minuscule compared to the number killed and injured by cars. After all there are a million licensed holders of weapons. You can imagine the outcry if everyone who wanted a car licence had to have a good reason for owning a car. That is what is being asked of the weapon holder.
The Government are hitting the wrong end of the scale. They are hitting at some of the most law-abiding citizens and they are tying up hours of valuable police time on unnecessary administrative work. It has been estimated—I do not know how accurately—that there will be at least 300,000 extra man hours per year required by the police to operate

1101
the legislation. Everyone knows that this country's police forces are crying out for more men and more money—men and money which will be taken away from the detection of criminal activity by this Bill.
I cannot conceive that the Government appreciate how much extra police time will be taken up if this Bill becomes law, certainly in its present form. It will result in a massive increase in the cost of shotgun and firearm licences. This seems highly inconsistent, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might consider this point. I think that it is very inconsistent that on the one hand the police should be crying out for more men and on the other asking for this additional administrative work which will be of little use to anyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, told us about the position in Switzerland. When I raised that point at a meeting with the police on Tuesday I was told that the reason for more stringent controls in this country was that there is a difference in temperament between the Swiss and the British. Might it not be said that it is due not to a difference in temperament but to a total lack of discipline becoming prevalent in this country? The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should be able to put me right on this point, but I understand that in Israel every able-bodied man between 18 and 55 years old is a soldier or part-time soldier and as such keeps his weapon at home. Is the Israeli of a more placid temperament than the British?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I find it difficult enough to speak for the Opposition in this country; I find it impossible to speak for the Government of Israel.
Lord Burton: My Lords, it is not for me to say how this situation should be put right but I should hate to be a schoolmaster in Britain under the present restrictions to which they are subjected. Perhaps the difference arises from conscription, which both Switzerland and Israel have. It may instil some discipline into their populations. Whatever the causes, it seems that the penalties for hooliganism, whether on the picket line, the football field or in the city centre, are not a deterrent.
Under this proposed legislation, if a shotgun owner fails to notify the police by registered post or recorded delivery within one week that he has lent his shotgun to someone he is liable to six months in jail plus a fine of £2,000. That is just for failing to let the police know by registered post or by recorded delivery. It will not be good enough for him to go to the police station to provide this information; it has to be done by one of those two methods.
I know that Ministers of the Crown cannot interfere with the penalties imposed by the judiciary, but there must be something very wrong when a man who has been known for some time to be poaching deer, when eventually convicted in court, is able to send his lawyer round to the sheriff's clerk after the case and is permitted to buy back the rifle which had been confiscated. Perhaps I may also refer to a report in my local paper earlier this week concerning a man who was caught poaching a stag out of season. He was fined a mere £20—about one-fifth of the carcass value of the animal. In the same paper there was
1102
another report that a man was fined £50, admittedly in another court, for stealing a packet of prawns and coleslaw. The fine was two and a half times as much for stealing a packet of prawns as it was for shooting a stag and illegal use of a weapon.
Let me quote another instance. A few months ago my keeper, luckily with a young boy in attendance, came upon a man with a rifle in the middle of our woods. When tackled, the man gave a false name and address and when told to hand over the rifle pointed it at the keeper and threatened to shoot him. The keeper, a big strong man, knocked the poacher to the ground and the young boy seized the rifle, which was loaded.
The police were delighted that the man had been apprehended. They said that he was a really dangerous character with a record as long as your arm. He had threatened a policeman with a power saw and he had gone into the Fort William police station with a can of petrol and threatened to set it on fire. Despite the fact that he was apprehended only two miles from home, his plea that he did not know where he was, was accepted. On pleading guilty he was fined £175 despite the fact that he had threatened someone with an illegal firearm. The police had hoped that he might go the the High Court where they thought he might get five years in jail.
In contrast, a highly respected citizen with no police record at all had left an aged single-barrel ·410 in a house on his shoot near the rearing field—a weapon he used for scaring crows. The occupier of the house had no shotgun certificate and consequently the owner of the gun was charged. He was fined exactly the same amount as the man who had threatened my keeper—£175. But this respected citizen had to pay all his legal expenses, unlike the villain, who had free legal aid. This emphasises how the law-abiding citizen is penalised while the villains go laughing from the court.
The legislation before us aggravates the situation and diverts police time from the detection of criminals. It requires the most careful scrutiny and substantial amendment. I think that it is in 1992 that we shall have to fall in line with Europe. I understand that the Government say that they will not bring our firearms legislation or taxation into line with Europe. I cannot understand how such a situation will he tolerated by the European Court.
Will a foreigner wanting to come to stalk in this country be happy about paying a high firearms licence fee when he is already licensed to hold a weapon in his own country? Is there not a considerable likelihood that the European Court would find against the British Government?
Some noble Lords may have seen the Answer to a Question which I put down last week concerning prosecutions under the Firearms Act 1968. It is not known how many of those concerned illegal weapons and how many concerned legal weapons. I understand that the figures given to me included airguns and that the vast majority of the prosecutions related to that sort of weapon. However, according to the latest figures available the number of offences fell markedly from 1982 to 1986. The 1968 Act also applied to Scotland, so the figures are incorrect

1103
anyway as they only apply to England and Wales. In view of the number of offences with airguns it is debatable whether the law on those should not be tightened up. Certainly there seems to be a need for restriction on crossbows.
There appears to be a sad gap in the legislation between the time that someone cannot show good reason for having a weapon and the time that the weapon becomes an antique. Are all old weapons to be mutilated before they can become antiques? For instance, I have a pair of Gibbs 400 rifles which I inherited from my grandfather. They are now obviously obsolete and there can be no ammunition available for them. However, they are beautiful weapons and worth, I am told, several thousand pounds. Are they to be vandalised? There are many old weapons, particularly in old houses, which are no longer of use but which are of great interest. That point was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and I believe that it is something at which we must look very carefully. There are many fine collections which may get lost.
Finally, as we cannot make this Bill into good legislation in this place, let us take one step which would produce better laws. It was only after strong pressure in another place that the Minister conceded the need for an advisory committee. What was produced, however, as has already been said, had no teeth at all. This is a technical matter and Ministers cannot be expected to know all about the subject. In fact, there is probably no one in this Chamber today who knows about all the disciplines involved in firearms. There will be those who are expert on target shooting or different kinds of game and vermin shooting, or clay pigeon shooting or the study of weapons and ammunition and even muzzle loading. There are many facets of this subject.
During our visit to the police on Tuesday I heard at least three contradictory statements from among the experts. What is required is a statutory committee of about 12 persons, plus an independent chairman. The representatives of that committee should be selected from the nominations submitted by the various disciplines. There is no object in having a committee which is dominated by the Home Office or the police. These are technical and complex matters and need people who know about them.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may remind him that crossbows are already covered under a separate Act, which I took through this House.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am very interested to hear that but I thought from what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said, that he was most concerned about that matter.
3 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I wonder whether we should be here today had not one man run amok last year. With equal seriousness I wonder whether we should be here today if the police had been as rigorous as they might have been in applying the existing rules to him. Frankly, I was totally astonished that Ryan could possess such an arsenal
1104
of weapons with the sanction of his local police. My experience as an owner of three Section 1 rifles is that my local police are incredibly careful and take great trouble over policing the operation of the firearms certificates. I might add there that the rifles to which I have just referred are not affected by this legislation.
I should also declare an interest in that I am a director of a major, leading firm of London gunmakers. I am concerned therefore in the manufacture and trading of a number of weapons. Public opinion was so outraged by what happened at Hungerford that I accept that any government would have had to do something to tighten controls, although this Bill over-reacts in respect in particular of the million or so users of shotguns. To return to Ryan for the last time, he was an owner of shotguns but he did not use them on his rampage.
The Minister talked very reasonably about balance being required. As we go through the further stages of the Bill, balance—particularly in regard to shotguns—will need more consideration. I have a slightly different idea about where the balance should lie. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put it well: we must all accept that there is no law or system of control that will ever prevent a determined criminal from getting a weapon or which will prevent a hitherto normal person going mad and running amok.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has accepted this; but I still sense that many people see in this Bill a panacea, which quite clearly it is not. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we must keep emphasising that it will not bring an end to the type of tragic events that have led to its production. It is also most depressing that past experience does not suggest—as we have heard from several noble Lords—that increasing firearms control leads to any decrease in firearms offences.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the question of rifles. I have considerable sympathy for the suggestion that special rules should apply to disabled people. This point was very fully covered by the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, and touched on by several other noble Lords. There is no doubt whatever that self-loading rifles are much easier for these people to use. Conventional rifles are very difficult. I should also like to support the idea—it came first from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and has been supported by other noble Lords—concerning the estate rifle which people are able to borrow on visiting an estate.
A point which I do not think has been made yet but which should commend itself to the Government is that if some such system were possible it might obviate the need for many people to own rifles in order to take them on occasional stalking trips to Scotland. It is certainly the wish of everyone that the number of rifles in circulation should be reduced.
I return therefore to the large part of the Bill devoted to tightening control on shotguns. I cannot understand the logic of virtually totally banishing pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns. I refer to those capable of firing more than two shots. I have never heard any evidence that they have been misued more often or that they are more lethal than ordinary breach-opening shotguns. They can indeed fire up to

1105
five shots more quickly than a double-barrelled breach-opening gun. But reloading is very slow and they would probably fire fewer shots in one minute than could be fired, say, by an experienced man with a breach-opener. They are also used almost entirely nowadays for clay pigeon shooting, having been banned for game shooting purposes under the Wildlife and Countryside Act when they have more than three shots in them. They are used by people from all walks of life.
Only this Monday when I came to London to attend a lunch to discuss the Bill, I took a taxi via my gunmakers in order to drop in some guns for annual overhaul. The taxi driver then engaged me in conversation about guns. He told me that he owned two shotguns; one a pump-action shotgun and the other a self-loading one. Under this legislation he will probably lose both guns. I asked him why he had them: his answer was that for his holiday he used to visit a clay pigeon shooting place. One of the most popular contests was to put up several clay pigeons at once and therefore a rapid rate of fire was required. All that will be brought to an end.
A further point concerns sawn-off shotguns used by criminals. Such guns are almost invariably of the conventional breach-opening type for the reason that they can be made much smaller than a self-loading or pump-action shotgun. The mechanism is relatively very large in the centre and the resultant sawn-off gun that much larger.
As to the requirements to list shotguns by serial numbers, I quite understand the wish to be able to track and follow them. I believe however that the burden on the police and the resultant bureaucracy may have been very seriously under-estimated. We are talking of keeping in touch with several million shotguns. No one yet knows how many. We have very little idea. This will have to be done by an already overstretched police force. The whole exercise, I strongly suspect, although I wish it were not so, would have no effect on their misuse. I have tried to find an example of where this has been tried elsewhere in the world. I believe that the most recent example is in the state of Victoria in Australia where a shotgun registration system was tried. The system almost completely broke down and was abandoned after a year or two because the workload on the police was too great and it seemed to be having no effect whatever.
With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, Northern Ireland is a very much smaller place than the rest of the United Kingdom. The registration scheme there was started a long time ago in response to the very special problems that have to be faced there.
I turn to the question of foreign visitors. I thought that the Minister was a little bland in his explanation of the need for the clause. The theme appears to be that if we are tightening up on our people, let us bring the foreigners into line also. I shall be interested to hear any evidence which he may have showing that foreign visitors have caused any particular problems in the past. If they have not done so, why legislate? I am afraid that it will discourage some visitors from coming here.
1106
The House has heard a great deal on this subject from other noble Lords. I should like to add one point. From the gun manufacturers' point of view—they are large exporters of guns—many salesn are made to visiting foreigners. The sales made in the busy shooting months are far greater than those which take place during the rest of the year. Many people who come here for their shooting holiday visit the gunmaker and order guns. There is great concern that a valuable trade and export-earning activity may suffer if such people are discouraged.
In conclusion I should like to say that I accept the need to tighten control on semi-automatic full-bore rifles. I strongly welcome the requirement for safer custody of all firearms. Beyond that I need a great deal more convincing that the tighter control of shotguns—bringing great trouble and cost to the police and law-abiding shooting community—will produce any real improvement in public safety.
3.12 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I like eggs, even curate's eggs. If the Bill has been likened to a curate's egg by my noble friend Lord Swinton I can say only that I like the Bill in principle. I am not sure why curates' eggs have always been singled out as being bad, but that is not the subject before us today.
I believe that the amount of play that has been made of the Hungerford disaster is slightly to over-react. It was the spark which lit the gunpowder. I believe that our existing laws are not now sufficiently adequate to control as far as is humanly possible the threats of putting shotguns, firearms or lethal weapons into the hands of the wrong people. I cannot agree with the fact that the provisions in the Bill, while probably consuming more police time and therefore adding to expense, are sufficient to deter the House from giving the Bill a guarded Second Reading. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Burton. Perhaps he did not listen to what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in his opening remarks; namely, that this is the kind of price that we must pay. I make the same comment to my noble friend Lord Swansea.
The law-abiding shooters are not being made a scapegoat by the Bill. In my view, any self-respecting, law-abiding shooter should be quite prepared to put up with the minor inconveniences—I put it no stronger than that—and the expense if he is concerned that the enjoyment of his sport should continue, provided that we do everything in our power to make it harder for the crooked men or women to get their hands on such weapons. Having said that, I feel that I should sit down because basically I agree with everything that many noble Lords have said when referring to their anxiety about passages in the Bill although I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Burton when he suggests that the Bill would indicate to Conservative voters that their votes are not safe in the hands of the Conservative Party. I fail to see the relevance.
I believe that the suggested compensation of £150 or half the price, whatever my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, is barely adequate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel who asked whether we can really expect people to hand in their weapons for £150

1107
when they know that they are worth more. The answer is that there will be a black market fund. If my noble friend Lord Ferrers is going to say to the law-abiding shooter that that is the price that one will have to pay to have this kind of Bill, then I say to the Government that by paying the full market value that is the kind of price you —the taxpayer—will have to pay to ensure that illegally held weapons are returned to the rubbish dump.
On the question of security, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, hit the nail on the head exactly. It is as easy as falling off a log to have the fore end or the bolt of a rifle or shotgun removed and kept locked in a different place from where the weapon itself is kept. In my view, that should be part of the requirement to be considered by the chief constable before he considers the granting of a shotgun or firearms certificate. It is the responsibility of those who possess these weapons to ensure that the maximum security is maintained by them. They have a great duty on their shoulders.
The noble Lady was concerned about the ability to lend a firearm. I believe that would ease the administrative problems and the difficulties that non-regular sportsmen have to meet when they receive the odd invitation to take part in a sport which requires a firearm. If it is on the owner's estate or under his personal supervision or something which could be discussed later, that would be helpful to the shooting world.
I turn now to the real point that I should like to make. We are very fortunate in this House to have Members from all walks of life and to be able to have the benefit of their wide experience and knowledge in order to discuss and debate upon these matters. I was delighted to listen to the excellent speeches of both maiden speakers but in particular that of my noble friend Lord Nelson. He has the privilege of having been a policeman and therefore on that side of the law. There are others of your Lordships' House who perhaps, as far as I am concerned, have been on the other side of the argument and therefore can bring a little light to bear on the receiving end of what the law may produce and show up matters under the 1968 Act which are not covered by this Bill.
I turn to the question of the granting of shotgun certificates, for which there is a degree of provision in the Bill. However, there is nothing in the Bill relating to the removal of a shotgun licence or the possible regranting of it. Perhaps I may give a personal example because it is relevant. For an unfortunate reason about which some of your Lordships may know—well, if I do not say so somebody else will—I found myself short of a shotgun certificate for a few years and the chief constable absolutely correctly exercised his judgment in that respect. However, he was not very forthcoming about if and when I might be in the privileged position of having a licence again. Time wore on and he retired and a new chief constable took over. He was very kind and we had a chat. He said that he was not very happy with the position which he thought was unfair. "You have suffered a penalty" he said "and rightly so, but every criminal has the right to know the length of time that his penalty is likely to last." He said that there is
1108
nothing laid down in the 1968 Act to make any provision for this situation, possibly because nobody had thought of it.
Though I am perhaps being a little frivolous, nevertheless there is a case for encouragement or indeed a requirement by chief constables to look carefully at the possession of a shotgun certificate if someone is convicted of an offence which might undermine the provisions whereby the certificate was granted in the first place. If that is done, then the chief constable should advise the person concerned at the time how long it might be before he should consider applying for a re-granting of the licence. That would be fair. I hope that point will be taken on board by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Nelson made a very important point concerning Clause 3. As he said, it does not make sense. Why should not an application be refused just because the applicant neither intends to use nor lend the gun. That seems absolutely ludicrous. If an applicant does not want to use or lend a gun why have it in the first place? I suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Bill is amended either by deleting the word "not" or deleting the whole sentence. If one does not want to use or lend a gun then one should not be in possession of it in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made an extremely important point. I enormously enjoyed his speech which was delivered in his usual most lucid and clear manner when he gives advice to your Lordships. I refer to his suggested requirement for some form of medical or similar report from a doctor. That would be helpful to a chief constable. I should have thought my noble friend would be happy to take up that point.
Yes. it is a good Bill in principle. We should give it our support. I know that many amendments will be tabled to improve the Bill and I hope that they will be taken on board as much as possible by the Government.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, for some 40 years I indulged in game shooting and deer stalking. Like a number of other noble Lords, I have taken part in the Vizianagram Shield competition at Bisley. I have not handled a shotgun for eight or nine years, partly through the constraints of time and partly because I do not now live in an area where there is a great deal of shooting.
I should also mention that my brother owns a hotel country house which was the ancestral home of my grandparents in Scotland for many years. Shooting and deer stalking are available there. I think it is important to bear in mind that all the guns and rifles on that establishment, so far as I am aware, will be covered under this Bill; so there is no question but that the Bill will affect that establishment. Naturally I shall be consulting him between now and the next stage of the Bill to ensure that he does not have any problems on that score.
If there is any real criticism of this Bill it is in its timing to the extent that it has been pushed into a legislative timetable where there are already four or

1109
five other major Bills. Looking at the position with hindsight, I believe that this Bill should have been introduced three or four years ago.
I do not believe that the dreadful incident at Hungerford necessarily concerns this Bill. Where one has psychopaths they will act in any case. It is interesting to recall that at the same time as the Hungerford incident, in Sydney, Australia, there was a similar dreadful incident in which I believe even more people were killed. I do not know what is the legislation in Australia or whether it is similar to the legislation here. In many parts of the world now this kind of terrible incident takes place for reasons which at this late hour on a Friday I shall not seek to elaborate upon. It is a subject that may be developed in the later stages of the Bill.
Clause 20 is an important one as regards the firearms consultative committee. When the Bill goes into Committee this clause will need close attention because it is very important that those persons who serve on the committee are persons of real stature. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could consider—certainly not now but in due course and with his officials—the possibility of including someone from the Magistrates' Association or someone with magisterial duties who naturally has some experience relevant to Clause 20(1) of the Bill. As cases come to court, it is the magistrates who initially have to deal with them. Obviously, they will be advised by their learned clerks, but it seems an important point arising from this Bill.
I believe this to be a very reasonable Bill. There are shortcomings with it. It is the first really major piece of firearms legislation for some years. It is always very difficult to define categories, whether it is firearms or anything else. I believe that in most shooting establishments the weapons excluded under Section 5 of the Act, as amended by this Bill, will give sportsmen and sportswomen a reasonable deal. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this Bill has been introduced largely as a result of public opinion. I believe that the general public of this country is deeply concerned about the large number of firearms, many of which are particularly lethal. Last Tuesday many noble Lords went to see some of these firearms in action. I believe that many people are very worried. This is not a matter upon which it is easy to legislate. It has been said already that no one can legislate for the psychopath who gets hold of a weapon and runs loose with it.
Comparison has been made with the motor car. I believe that is totally illogical. A person who is driving dangerously, whether under the influence of drink or not, is usually apprehended by the police before an accident takes place. Admittedly, that does not occur every time. Of course there are more people killed on the roads than by firearms, but I do not believe that is a reason there should not be legislation against the illegal use of firearms and a reduction of the number in use.
The hour is late and other noble Lords have yet to speak. It is quite clear that in Committee the Bill will have to be closely examined, and that a number of
1110
loose ends must be tied up. I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on introducing legislation (however imperfect some of it may be) to correct a serious situation both in this country and internationally.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, the House will be glad to hear that at this late stage on a Friday afternoon I shall be brief and I hope factual. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend Lord Swinton. I entirely align myself with the speech of my noble friend Lord Swinton and with much of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly in relation to the advisory committee, with reference to which he ended his marvellous address to us.
He described it as "weak and wobbly". I am concerned that the advisory committee—a last minute thought conceded by the Government by a defeat in the other place—should have the proper constitution. By that I mean not the purposes or the aims of an article or memorandum of association, but an equal balance between the police, the Home Office and the experts. I do not know whether there is substance in this, but I have heard that certain experts who are slightly contentious in their views have been told that they will not be heard in the preliminary stages to the Bill. That is worrying. I hope therefore that my noble friend on the Front Bench is aware of the constitution.
I raise this point for another reason. At the time of the Report stage in another place the size of the committee was eight. It has now grown to 13. Nothing has been said about who will constitute it. I look forward to hearing the Government's view at the Committee stage, and no doubt I shall be tabling amendments.
I said that I would try to be brief and factual. This subject can touch the emotions frequently more often than the intellect. I shall try not to fall into that trap. I hope to be reasonably factual and intellectual on an extremely difficult and highly technical subject. It is the subject of many peripheral pieces of legislation which creep into other statutes. I hope that before Committee stage my noble friend on the Front Bench will take into account the cross-application of what is proposed here into the other pieces of legislation, many of which were passed in this century to protect the police and to protect people from the wrongful use of firearms. In this respect I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Swinton. That has to be secured. How it is secured is the matter that interests us now.
At the Committee stage I shall be concerned with the drafting of the Bill. In my view, the drafting is nothing short of appalling—and I use that word after great consideration. I shall give one example of why it is so appalling. In Clause 1(2) of the Bill words are used which are supposed to be substituted for the words in Section 5 of the Firearms Act. Subsection (2) states:
"Any firearm which is so designed or adapted"—
we can forget that; it is the same—
"that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure"

1111
If one looks at what that is proposed to replace—one supposes that one goes from worse to better—it reads,
"Any firearm which is so designed or adapted" —
those are in fact the same words—
"that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed".
However, the proposed wording makes no mention of pressure being applied. Therefore I call this the "immaculate discharge clause" of the present Bill. If no pressure is applied, I do not see how anything can come out of the wrong end. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will look carefully into this matter because no drafting points seem to have been raised in the other place. The old wording is good English, and it is clear. Moreover, I am sure that if my noble friend Lord Renton were present in the Chamber today he would not totally disagree with me; in fact, I think that he might even agree with me.
There are examples elsewhere in the Bill of double negatives. There are examples where the person who has the gun and applies for a certificate must prove a negative, which is a most unhealthy development—not common to this Bill but common and widespread in many other matters, especially in housing legislation—which is creeping into the legislation purely on a drafting matter. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will look into the matter with considerable care.
There is another aspect that concerns me which my noble friend has already addressed. The old Act provides that the chief constable "shall" give—that is mandatory—a certificate unless he is satisfied that the fellow comes within the various categories when he can disallow it. The Bill's new provisions provide that the chief constable has a right to be satisfied, so that the stress is turned round. The burden is shifted from the police constable to the person who is applying for the firearm certificate. Then the chief constable has the right to investigate whether there is a safe place for keeping the firearm, and so on.
That is a lever which I find most unattractive because it is that lever which will enable the chief constable to say, want to come into your house"; whereas, in 1968, under the provisions of the previous Act, he would have had to have a search warrant to do so. It is not difficult to see that he will not grant a certificate unless he is sure that you have taken the right precautions for looking after the weapon; the right safeguards so that it cannot be stolen, and so on.
I am all in favour of making things difficult for criminals. However, I am not sure that I like what the Bill does without directly going to the point of saying that he must have a right of access. If he has a right of access then let it be said; do not let it be made available by some quiet way through. If such a provision must be made I hope to hear from my noble friend why it cannot be made clearly and in good English.
I have one or two further points to make in regard to the compensation provisions. I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to my concerns in this connection. I suggest that 50 per cent. is not entirely the right approach. Many people who will lose their
1112
rifles will lose the opportunity to participate in that sport. Therefore I suggest that somewhere between what would have been the market value at the time the person wished to sell had not the market been interfered with by the Government—which is of course their right—and the upper limit of the replacement value is the right measure of compensation.
The Government's proposal excludes the value of accessories which form part of that weapon. Furthermore, the trader who has bought those weapons will receive no compensation. As I understand it, there will be no compensation for shotguns which come under Clause 1. That will inevitably devalue the gun. In consequence, innocent people will suffer.
I urge my noble friend to look again closely at the pump-gun provisions. Pump-action guns are heavy weapons. I believe that about 250,000 people have such weapons. They are not expensive to buy. When the present volume of expensive side-lock guns, which one may have been fortunate enough to inherit, wear out or blow out, many noble Lords may find themselves wishing that they had bought such weapons, because they are reliable, durable and inexpensive. Many people use those guns for sport, especially in boats shooting pigeon off the coasts of the whole kingdom. Suddenly to find themselves affected by Clause 1 is not fair, especially when there is no compensation. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that the guidelines to be issued to the police would be disclosed. I shall look forward to seeing what they say and I will reserve my position on that point. I hope that those guidelines will preserve the position of people who use such guns and enable them to purchase them and enjoy the sport as they hitherto have. The Bill, as it now stands, prevents certain people at the bottom end of the market from enjoying the sport when they cannot afford to spend. What is the price of a new Purdey, a new Holland and Holland, or one of the top side-lock guns?
I have spoken too long. I align myself entirely with what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Peel have said about visitors. I hope that the restrictions that are to be imposed will not discourage visitors from coming to our shores and spending money. My noble friend Lord Swinton said that those visitors often bring their girlfiends with them. What little experience I have—which of course does not measure up to his—is that the girlfriend almost always exacts the cost of the gun to her own benefit. It would be a valuable concession to allow people to come here without having to take a licence for a whole year and having to spend a great deal of money on it. In Spain a licence costs £3. That is paid to the Government. I shall be interested to see what my noble friend will do about allowing people to come into the country and produce certificates through the Customs and Excise, which I understand has not been more than usually unco-operative in these affairs, and to leave the country within a given period having used the gun not on just one shoot but on two or three.
I have said too much. I have spoken for three times longer than I planned, but then I have not used my notes. I am most grateful to your Lordships.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I refer my noble friend Lord Dilhorne to the middle page of this week's Shooting Times. I had a feeling that the argument about the cost of pump-action guns being the poor man's weapon might come up. If he bothered to look in the Shooting Times he would have found that the best choice of a double-barrelled non-ejector shotgun can be obtained for as little as £69. The argument about a pump-action shotgun being a cheap weapon is disproved.
We have almost reached the end of the debate and there is only one argument that has not been used. It is an important argument and it concerns the management of wildlife and the countryside as a whole. I do not believe that there is a sound conservation argument at this stage for doing anything to increase the amount of fire power available to sportsmen in the countryside today as regards game shooting or the control of avian or mammalian predators. I think that is a very important argument. It leads me to the view that I support the Government in their ban on self-loading rifles.
However, I think that perhaps some of us may have to have another look at this. What concerns me about the self-loading rifle is that while most of your Lordships were taught to shoot with a bolt action rifle, I understand that today most people in the services are taught to shoot with a self-loading rifle. So we may have to give special attention to that.
There is one other argument which I think we must remember. The Bill is necessary, quite apart from the troubles that happened last year. The existing shotgun certificate is a perfectly useless piece of paper as it stands at the moment. It only hears the name of the person; it does not list his weapons. In listing the weapons there is no question of restricting the number of shotguns that anyone may own.
However, I think that my noble friend Lord Nelson was right in his excellent maiden speech when he said that information technology was such that in a few years' time it will be perfectly possible for every shotgun that is numbered and licensed on a shotgun certificate to be listed by the police. We were advised at the demonstration the other day, which my noble friend Lord Ferrers laid on for us, that if they have the number and type of the gun they can identify the ejected ammunition for that gun. In many cases that would be extremely useful.
If we are to have a shotgun certificate, let us have a more useful and realistic one. The present shotgun certificate does not stipulate safekeeping. There can be no argument among any of your Lordships that keeping a shotgun behind the door is no longer acceptable. There are still far too many in houses behind the door. With 650 shotguns stolen last year, we must face up to the safekeeping of all shotguns. Just to put the fore end in your desk drawer and lock it up is not sufficient, a shotgun will fire without its fore end. The fore end is only there to work the ejectors.
The other reason why I think this Bill is necessary is that it was shown clearly to us the other day that when the original shotgun certificate was brought in
1114
there was no question of the new weapons which are now becoming available. It seems incredible to me that an importer could have brought into this country in excess of 1,000 of the 12-bore shotgun that is issued to the Italian police. It has a magazine holding 40 rounds of ammunition and can be fired as an automatic weapon. For what purpose could such a weapon ever be introduced into this country? Somebody has chanced their arm and brought in 1,000 of them. They should never be allowed to get into circulation and I trust that this Bill will stop that.
I also feel that we ought to face up to the fact that there is no sound reason to encourage people to buy and own any more pump-action shotguns. The Bill will allow the existing pump-action shotguns, subject to a certain amendment, to be placed on the firearms certificate and still continue to be used. However, I think that the time has come when we should all say that the clay pigeon shooters do not want pump-action shotguns. If there are five on a clay pigeon shoot and somebody is using one of the pump-action shotguns, nine times out of 10 it will jam and spoil everybody else's concentration. There is no argument for having those guns there.
There is no argument on the subject of price. They are not the poor man's weapon; there are many cheaper guns, as I have already demonstrated. One cannot actually carry a pump-action shotgun safely in company. It is an unbalanced, crude bit of ironmongery which it is not possible to use under the normal courtesies of shooting. We should say straight away that we shall allow those who have them to keep them, subject to amendment, but we should discourage anybody else from buying them.
I do not think that there is any argument about safekeeping. There is one point on safekeeping included in the Bill which I particularly welcome. It is that the safekeeping for a relative or friend is a sufficient reason for wishing to continue to own a shotgun. If any of your Lordships died and your widow wanted to keep your guns for your grandchildren, provided they are safely kept there is no reason a chief officer of police should not grant a shotgun certificate.
In dealing with Part 1 weapons—firearms—I am aware of the fact that in the parish in which I live no fewer than nine offences involving Part 1 firearms have been committed in the past year. It is distressing to find that, where people plead guilty to misuse of a firearms certificate—using it in an area without an invitation or in an area for which it is not licensed—the firearms certificate has been renewed in many cases. If an offence is proved, the chief officer of police should withdraw the certificate.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, covered the other points which concern me. She mentioned the problem of the estate rifle and the problem of people who are taken out by a keeper with a rifle which is on his firearms certificate. I am very conscious of the fact that the Minister's honourable friend committed an offence when he shot a stag using an estate rifle. The Bill should be amended to cover that point.
Apart from those matters, I give the Bill my wholehearted support. I am sorry that so many of the

1115
shooting community have made such heavy weather of a measure which produces a good balance between the safety of citizens and the demands of the legitimate shooter.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers. I decided to speak this morning and I have not prepared anything. Therefore, I shall not keep the House long.
There are one or two points that I wish to make. The first concerns explosive ammunition. That type of ammunition explodes when it hits something. Before the war, I always shot with solid ammunition. When I was in Germany, I learnt to use explosive ammunition. It kills much more quickly and painlessly. No doubt many of those in the animal-loving fraternity will approve of explosive shot because it is less painful for the animal, which does not run several miles, drop down and die in agony. It is killed at once.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned the Swiss and how good they are with weapons compared to the Germans. However, they are very different people. The Swiss are a closely knit race. Even Caesar will tell you about that. When the rest of Gaul was getting overrun by all sorts of tribes, the Swiss kept themselves to themselves, as they do to this day. Their discipline is worthy of note. They do not fire guns off everywhere. They learn, as I learnt when I was a small child, to respect arms and guns.
During the First World War, things were tough at home for me. I do not remember much about it. However, I remember being given a gun and going out to shoot rabbits and hares. Later on, I used to get pheasants, ducks and all sorts of things. I kept the larder going. Our old head keeper—an elderly gentleman—could not go about with me. He used to give me my gun in the morning and tell me where to go, and off I would go and shoot one for the house. I would come back again and carefully hand my gun over to him so I that it would be nicely cleaned and looked after for the next time. I respected that gun. That training made me careful with guns. I believe that people should respect their weapons.
A lot has been said about the crossbow. The crossbow is a good weapon for rabbit control. At one time a crossbow was issued by the army and used by Continental people. The English then came along with their long bow. That could fire nine arrows compared to one arrow fired from a crossbow. That meant that the fire power of the English was far greater than that of anyone on the Continent. As a result the crossbow became very unpopular. I am inclined to think that it ought still to be very unpopular. I agree on that point.
I had not realised that there was so much argument about the issue of licences. I used to think that we could make quite good legislation fairly quickly on the licence, but from what I have heard today I realise that it is a much more complicated subject than I had realised. I am still very much inclined to back the scheme. I approve of the whole idea but it needs to be tied up and it will take a lot of thought before it is tied up properly. If a permit is introduced I think that it should be valid for at least five years.
1116
I was interested to hear the comments about police powers. A short time ago six of my rifles were stolen. They are antiques of various sorts ranging from flintlocks to modern weapons. They were going to an exhibition in a museum and the whole damn lot was swept up one night and I never saw my guns again. The police looked into the matter; they asked about the guns but they did not even follow it up. We think that we know who took the guns but they got safely away and that was the end of my guns. I think that recording the names and addresses of owners and the numbers of the guns would be very useful.
I should like to know what the opinion is about explosive shot. I think that it is very useful for stag shooting, and I understand also for wild boar. I have not shot wild boar but I believe it is used for that purpose.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall begin on a point on which I am sure there will be common agreement; that is, that we have heard two very attractive maiden speeches today by the noble Earls, Lord Nelson and Lord Portsmouth. I think that they were bold men indeed to try to make non-controversial speeches on the Second Reading of this particular Bill. If I may say so, I think that they both acquitted themselves extremely well. There was a strong difference between them in terms of the conclusions which they reached, and I come down unhesitatingly on the side of the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, who has the immense advantage of having been a serving police officer in this country and having seen the way in which armed criminals are prepared to use firearms.
I think that it will generally be agreed that this has been a rather odd debate. The Bill before us has been assailed by many of the Government's traditional supporters in this House. It has had few, though some, supporters on the Benches opposite. The latest count which I have made in terms of the line up of forces is seven in favour of the main principles of the Bill and 14 against, with a number of speeches being of what I might describe as an unclassifiable character.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in opening the debate made some criticism of the way in which the Bill had been handled in another place and of the drafting of the Bill. He came down in favour of the Bill. That is hardly surprising because in the other place the Opposition—rightly in my view—initiated a half-day debate on this general issue and the terms of the Opposition Motion were entirely consistent with the central purposes of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Knights, speaking with the authority of a former chief constable of the West Midlands and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, also came down firmly in favour of the Bill, subject to some rather important qualifications related to whether the Bill went far enough. I very much agree with all points that he made. I propose to come back in my own speech to one of the issues that he raised.
I must make clear at the outset that my noble friends and I are broadly in favour of the central

1117
purposes of the Bill. On one quite important issue we intend to listen carefully to the debate at the Committee stage. It is the question relating to compensation. I think that the Government seriously mishandled this matter in the House of Commons. I am sure it was not the responsibility of the Home Office because it was almost certain, given the argument about the level of compensation, that the Home Office was receiving its instructions from the Treasury. Undoubtedly the Committee stage of that Bill got off to an extremely bad start in the House of Commons and poisoned the atmosphere, which proved much to the Government's disadvantage in the Bill's later stages.
I must say at once that I do not for one moment believe that had the Government had the most prolonged consultations with the shooting interests, there was any prospect whatever of an agreed Bill emerging. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, agreeing with that remark. It is a point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, and I am bound to say in the light of all the speeches that have been made in this Chamber today that the prospect of those consultations leading in some magical fashion to a happy outcome is wholly unrealistic. That is made even more clear by the very large number of representations that I have received—as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I am sure many other noble Lords —some of which were couched in pretty extreme terms.
I should like to touch on just one or two points that were made during the course of those representations because I believe that they are relevant to our debate. I shall deal with two letters that I received, one from the Country Landowners' Association and another from the South-West Lancashire Pistol Club. Apart from one or two relatively secondary issues, both those organisations made it quite clear, as did others, that they were opposed in principle to the central purposes of this legislation. I think that the views of some of the "shooters" can be summed up fairly accurately by two statements that were made in those letters. In one passage of the letter from the Country Landowners' Association it says:
"If anything, it" —
that means the Bill —
"will increase crime by giving the criminals more laws to break".
Of course that statement, if true, would prevent Parliament from ever adding any provisions to the criminal law of this country. I have not noticed any reluctance on the part of the CLA and its supporters to urge extension of the criminal law when they considered it right to do so. That strange argument appears to be used only when the interests of shotgun users are concerned.
Similarly, is it in fact true to say, as did the South-West Lancashire Pistol Club (and others)—and indeed it is a view that has been echoed in some of the speeches made today—that:
"firearms legislation has little effect upon the level of armed crime"?
That is certainly not the view of the many senior United States police officers with whom I have had the advantage of discussing this matter. They believe that our tough, highly restrictive legislation on the
1118
ownership of hand guns is an immense asset to this country. They are saddened that it is virtually impossible to have similar legislation put on to the statute book at either federal or state level, because of the political power in the United States of the National Rifle Association.
Despite the astonishing level of armed crime in the United States and despite the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of Senator Robert Kennedy, the killing of Martin Luther King and the slaughter of scores of police officers, the NRA, with its very substantial resources, has succeeded in intimidating legislators in both Washington and the state legislatures and so has prevented the passing of effective gun control laws.
I believe that one of the reasons the level of armed crime in this country is so much lower than in the United States is because of firearms legislation, in particular in the past, relating to handguns. Until 1967 our firearms legislation almost exclusively related to handguns and rifles. In that year my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Home Secretary, for the first time introduced controls over shotguns in the Criminal Justice Act of that year and these were incorporated in the consolidation measure in 1968. My noble friend took that action because of the very serious disquiet of the Metropolitan Police and a number of provincial forces about the absence of any significant controls on shotguns. I think there is little doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, that we should on that occasion have gone a great deal further.
However, in the past few years the use of shotguns has once again increased. It is certainly true that shotguns are not used as regularly as handguns. The present ratio in the Metropolitan Police area is about two to one in favour of handguns. But it is also right to take account of what is happening to the level of armed crime in London.
In 1983 just over £1·7 million was stolen in armed attacks on security vehicles. Last year that figure had risen to well over £7 million. The amount stolen in the same period in armed raids on building societies has more than doubled. Because of this, and the increasing threat of the use of firearms in domestic disputes—an issue which should never be ignored—the number of times Metropolitan Police officers have been required to draw their weapons rose from 55 in 1978 to 162 last year. That means that the number of occasions on which metropolitan officers draw their firearms is now running at over three a week. That is a situation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said at the beginning of his speech, we would have regarded as extraordinary only 10 years ago.
The weapons that cause the police the greatest anxiety are not handguns, which are strictly controlled, but shotguns, which are not. Most shotgun confrontations are taking place during robberies or following family disputes and are at extremely short range.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I may question the noble Lord on this. He referred to shotguns. Surely he is referring to sawn-off shotguns, which are already illegal.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not. I am referring to shotguns of both categories and not simply to sawn-off shotguns. As I have indicated, the confrontation normally takes place at a range of between one and 10 yards in the kind of incident that I am describing. If a shotgun is fired at that range the effect inevitably is a large hole in the body of the person who has been struck. It can measure in many cases between two and six inches.
The reason for such fearful wounds is that at that distance the shot has not had time to separate and spread. In addition, the hardboard or plastic wad containing the shot within the cartridge and some unburnt or still burning powder grains are often embedded in the wound. That is why a shotgun blast at close range has far more devastating effects in many cases than a single missile handgun. In many cases death is instantaneous. In the United States many highway patrols these days tend to use shotguns rather than handguns when approaching vehicles about which they have any suspicions. That is because the shotgun is, at short range, an infinitely more effective weapon.
It has been the increasing use of these weapons that has led the police to ask the Home Office to tighten up the law in respect of shotguns. The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, said that this would have the unfortunate effect of adding to the manpower problems of the police. I am sure that that is true. But I also have no doubt whatever that chief officers of police who are concerned about the establishment of their forces take the view that this is one of the most urgent priorities facing them. So far as I am aware, that is the view of very nearly every chief officer of police in England and Wales.
The Minister will be aware that the police were raising this question with the Home Office well before the episode involving Mr. Ryan at Hungerford. So were some of us in this House. We had an exchange with the noble Earl's predecessor but one, the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when two years ago —this relates directly to what the noble Lord, Lord, Kimball, said at the end of his speech —we asked him when he proposed to strengthen controls on shotguns and particulary whether there would be an obligation on certificate holders to store their weapons safely when they were not being used. All we received on that occasion was an assurance from the noble Lord that:
"it is under active consideration".—[Official Report, 17/7/1986; col. 1011.]
Two years later this active consideration has led us nowhere. But now as a result of what happened at Hungerford, we have a satisfactory reference in the Bill to this problem.
But even here I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough. If I may, I shall give one example. Clause 3, as the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, pointed out, is crucial because it lays down for the first time that a chief officer of police not only has to be satisfied that an applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun only if there is no danger to public safety or to the peace, but he can refuse to grant or renew a certificate if he does not believe that the applicant has a good reason for having such a weapon.
1120
However, in the new subsection (1A) in the draft of Clause 3 there is an extremely unfortunate double negative. It reads:
"No such certificate shall be granted or renewed…
Then later in paragraph (b), if the chief officer,
"Is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one".
That may just be a piece of inelegant drafting which can be dealt with at Committee stage. What I should be grateful to hear from the noble Earl is whether it is simply a drafting matter or whether there is not here a point of substance underlying this provision. What is disturbing to a number of lawyers whom I have consulted and to some chief officers of police is that they fear that the use of this double negative could be designed to limit the powers of the police. They believe that it may make it more difficult for the police to prove whether or not there is good reason. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would consider this and particularly see whether we could not substitute the language of Section 27(1) of the 1968 Act which, if it is simply a drafting matter, could deal with this matter far more easily.
I shall now briefly deal with a point that I anticipated at the beginning of my speech, a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, which is causing substantial anxiety. It is a matter which I hope will not affect the majority of shotgun licence holders in this country. The issue was undoubtedly highlighted by the Ryan affair and relates to the use of armour-piercing bullets. This kind of ammunition is commonly available, I understand, primarily from Eastern bloc countries. Ryan had just such ammunition at Hungerford; as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, indicated, the police did not. That was because they must accept the standards applied by the Home Office; and, in my view, that is right. But is also means that the kind of soft-body armour worn by policemen in those circumstances can be penetrated by just such bullets.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, and I are anxious to hear from the Minister whether the Government will deal with that point at the Committee stage by prohibiting the use and possession in this country of ammunition of that character. That is a point of great substance. It has been raised previously with the Government and I hope that on this occasion we shall have satisfaction from the noble Earl on that important matter.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken today have been critical of some of the central purposes of the Bill. I do not believe that that view is representative of the state of public opinion in this country. The public expects that they, and police officers, will be protected so far as possible from attacks by armed criminals. The Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation have supported the broad approach of the Bill. In so far as they have criticism—and indeed in some cases they have criticism—it is that the Bill does not go far enough.
I hope that today the House has listened carefully to the views which have been expressed by the police service and not only to arguments advanced in good

1121
faith on behalf of the owners of shotguns. After all, it is the police who have the responsibility of tackling armed criminals. It is police officers who daily stand at risk of being subjected to attack by criminals carrying shotguns.
In those cirumstances, I do not believe that their views can be lightly disregarded. I believe that the Bill should be supported and that it would be entirely wrong for this House to weaken it still further. Not only would it be wrong, but I believe that in such circumstances we should be profoundly lacking in a sense of responsibility.
4.17 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should first like to suggest that this is not a party matter. There may be some party cracks in another place. In this House the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, raised several points and, in a humourous way, so did the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I like to think that noble Lords from all sides of the House can agree that something should be done about the control of firearms.
I wish to congratulate the two maiden speakers. I was particularly impressed by the experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Nelson. I hope that the House will take note of what he said because his comments were germane to the situation. We look forward to hearing from the noble Earl at the Committee stage. I was great friends with the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth. I travelled with him in America; I spent a great deal of time with him in Committee. The great feature of the noble Earl's speech was that it was very much to the point and very brief. I congratulate him and hope that he will take part in our Committee work.
As the second to last speaker and someone who was pulled in at the last moment to wind up the debate, I have listened to 23 speeches. I do not know what more I can say that will interest your Lordships. However, I must declare my interest. From the age of about 16 I have shot ground game —partridges, pheasants, and grouse —and I have also done a certain amount of stalking. There are two shooting clubs which I entertain on my farm in Essex. Therefore, I have a considerable interest in the subject.
On this side of the House, we agree that the Bill is a necessity. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on what he said at the beginning, the manner in which he said it and the clarity with which he put the Bill across despite the strictures of my noble friend Lord Mishcon about the consultative committee. I believe that we were well served by this explanation.
Most people agree that the present law on guns and shooting requires amendment. Some people say that the Bill does not go far enough; others say that it goes too far. I believe that we have much to do in sorting out that issue in Committee.
As I said earlier, what more can I say? I shall mention one or two matters. There is the question of lobbying and briefing. My noble friend made the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the various briefings and lobbyings we have had. The
1122
Shooters Rights Association produced a large glossy report which was quite interesting. I believe that the association did a good job in producing it at such short notice. There was a much shorter brief from the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and, if I may say so, it was a much milder criticism than was the noble Lord's speech today. I am afraid that I disagree with quite a lot of what he said. We had a good brief in some respects from the Pistol Club. I have received quite a few private letters mostly from ordinary members rather than officials of clubs who feel that there is something to be said for an amendment, particularly with regard to the possible expense for ordinary members of shooting clubs. We shall have to look at that.
We had briefs from the NFU and the CLA. I believe both were agreed that the Bill is necessary although the noble Lord, Lord Harris, picked out a point in the CLA's submission which I had not noticed. As I say, they had several reservations about some aspects. A question raised in nearly every brief that I received concerned the lack of consultation. I then read the speech of the Home Secretary on Second Reading in another place. He seemed to refute that suggestion, saying that there had been consultation. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also made that point. Many noble Lords have mentioned lack of consultation. I believe there must have been a blank somewhere. It would be interesting if the noble Earl could assist on that matter.
There are three points that I should like to address. First, there is the question of Hungerford. Much emotion was created by that dreadful occasion, and rightly so. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, made a very emotional speech—again, rightly so because his name is also Baron Hungerford. I believe that we must be very careful. I believe that emotion has figured rather too much in the debate on this Bill. I do not believe that emotion is a precursor of good law. Many people, I think, would agree with that.
In my opinion the important matter is not so much the gun or rifle but the person who owns or is using it. I believe that far stricter references should be demanded by the police before anyone receives a gun or arms certificate. I do not think that that should be too difficult. It should be insisted on by the police. They should be satisfied about the referees. I believe that would do much to help the situation.
The third point I want to make is that the actual ownership of a gun does not, in my opinion, encourage a person to use it illegally. Frankly, the horror films on TV are more likely to do that than the cosh, knife, broken bottle or the gun. They are only the instrument of that influence. I know that a gun is the worst of the four weapons that I have mentioned and if this Bill helps to reduce misuse, well and good; but we must not presume that ownership of a gun in itself encourages violence. I believe that one noble Lord said that anybody can go mad like the fellow at Hungerford; but that is a slightly unlikely event.
From the briefings that I have received the main worry from clubs, and so on, is that the Bill might inhibit genuine law-abiding gun users. I should mention the two clubs that come to my farm in Essex. I know the members fairly well. They are law-abiding

1123
people. They would have strong feelings about any inhibition of their activities which they so much enjoy. One comes to my farm every month and the others about once a fortnight. We let the shooting to one of the clubs. They are the sort of people who should be considered in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to keeping guns at the back door. I must admit that until recently that is where I generally kept my gun. Regulations in that respect will affect the farming community in keeping down pests. On my farm we are troubled by deer from Epping Forest. My wife sometimes comes home from a walk to say that there are 20 deer in the wheat field—generally there are only 10, but that is another matter! By the time I unlock my rifle from the cupboard upstairs, go to my office and open the safe to obtain the bolt and some cartridges, the deer are halfway back to Epping Forest. Therefore, the position is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, suggests. There will be a bigger nuisance than he makes out. It will be difficult to get farmers to look after their weapons in the way proposed.
As regards automatic rifles, and as I said a moment ago, I have done some stalking and I believe my experience is shared by many people. The last time I stalked was at my brother's estate at Glen Roy. I had the good luck (I suppose one can say) of getting three stags. The first two each fell with one shot. The gillie was congratulating me as we approached the third, after a very vigorous day on the hill. I had an automatic rifle with a telescopic sight. If one misses or does not hit properly with the first shot there is no question but that one can get in a second shot before the deer moves and therefore one does not let loose a wounded deer in the hills. That point has been made by keepers in many places and I believe that automatic rifles should be allowed in such circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Wynford, referred to people like himself who are disabled. The recoil is much less and therefore it helps them to enjoy rifle shooting. Therefore, automatic rifles must be considered from that aspect.
I now refer to compensation. One of the letters I received was from a man who owns a rifle which he feels he should give up. He says that it is worth £1,000. Does the noble Earl agree that he should be given only £150 as compensation? Compensation is another aspect that must be considered. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly emphasised that aspect.
I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, about airguns, pistols and shotguns in the orders. There was no order for an automatic rifle in that category. There is too much emphasis on the question of the automatic rifle. Ryan shot half of his victims with a pistol which would have been passed within the terms of this Bill.
The only other point I wish to make is on the broader question of Northern Ireland. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised it. My noble friend Lord Blease left me a brief. He is very worried about the effects of this legislation on Northern Ireland. He left me with three questions to ask the Minister about what consultations took place with the shooting federations there, the Ulster Farmers' Union, the security forces, and the RUC who will
1124
have the difficult task of administering the proposed legislation. He also asked what provisions there are to repeal the present legislation as regards firearms in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Earl will look into those matters.
I have notes concerning what various noble Lords said today. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about the EC and the fact that there will have to be comparable legislation within that organisation by 1992.
The subject of crossbows is an interesting one. I referred to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and I hope I replied to it suitably. I believe that we shall have a very interesting and, I fear, prolonged Committee stage; but that is the right time at which to go into the detail of the Bill. In the meantime, we give its general provisions our blessing and we hope to improve the Bill still further at Committee stage.
4.32 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, we have had a very interesting debate which has continued for quite a long while. I thank your Lordships for the courteous way in which this debate has been conducted. There are a large number of wide-ranging views on the subject, some of which are emotional and some of which deal with sport. It is a quite right that all these matters should be considered carefully and closely.
I find the problem of winding up the debate and answering the many questions that have been asked a formidable one. I hope that if I do not reply to all the questions your Lordships will not feel offended. If I can, I shall reply to those which I believe to be the most important and I shall do my best to contact other noble Lords as regards the more detailed questions. However, many of the points raised will arise again at the Committee stage.
I was grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, gave to this Bill. He asked me who had been consulted in Northern Ireland and a number of other questions of that kind. I have a great list of those who have been consulted in general and perhaps I may write to him on that point. I am grateful too for the welcome given to this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, particularly when he said that Peers may be critical of it but that the public is not. I believe the noble Lord is absolutely right. There are bound to be criticisms but the point is that there needs to be control over these weapons.
A most interesting part of this debate was the maiden speeches made by two noble Earls. The fact that they are both Earls was perhaps an added distinction in a modest kind of way. I congratulate both of them. My noble friend Lord Nelson spoke with most genuine feeling and from his experience as a policeman. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, followed him and said that my noble friend Lord Nelson spoke from the heart. He was quite right. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that when police face firearms they have to have guts. Both my noble friend Lord Nelson and the noble Lord, Lord Knights, have had experience of the police force and what it is up against. The debate was enriched by those contributions. My noble friend Lord Nelson said that no reasonable person would be against the Bill. That was a helpful interjection.

1125
My noble friend Lord Portsmouth gave his speech with the gentle delivery of a person who is concerned and knowledgeable, and brought with it the advantage of youth. I say that with some special feeling because it is a matter of mild concern to me that when I first knew my noble friend he was 10 years old and at the same school as my son. That has a horribly accelerating effect of anno domini. They were both at school at my noble friend's house.
I am glad to see that the damage which my son and others may have inflicted upon my noble friend's house will now be repaired as his house is returned to the purpose for which it was meant —as a private home. I am delighted to know that my noble friend will be returning there, in, I hope, more splendour than was the case when it was a school for rather recalcitrant pupils. We look forward to hearing both noble Earls on many occasions. Their speeches were of enormous help.
I was grateful too that my noble friend Lord Kimball, who has such experience of the countryside, should have said that he is in favour of the Bill and that he thought those in the shooting community were making heavy weather of it. Whether or not they are making heavy weather is, I suppose, a matter of individual perception. I hope they will realise that we have tried to meet them over many of the points, and many of the points produced today will be considered carefully to see whether there are ways in which they can be met.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, spoke with all the authority of a former chief constable of the West Midlands. He said that people were surprised to find self-loading firearms in the hands of private individuals and that the public will not be content while this is allowed. That was an important statement. In the Bill we have tried to allow a more reasoned control over these weapons.
My noble friend Lord Ironside spoke in an especially knowledgeable and detailed fashion. I could not help having a wry smile when he said that the Government should not have taken the easy way out. I have never thought that the Bill is the easy way out for anyone. My noble friend Lord Burton said with his customary modesty that the Home Office is empire-building. If anyone wished to build an empire he would not do it with this kind of Bill, which causes enormous problems, as has been witnessed this afternoon. I reject mildly but severely both those observations.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, it would be a very much more difficult task to have a new Firearms Bill before us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, let us not go down that track of having a new Firearms Bill. This one is difficult enough as it is. My noble friend Lord Portsmouth suggested that we should have a new Firearms Bill. However that may be, my noble friend Lord Ironside referred to the stun gun which uses plain old electricity —I like that expression—and is powered with ordinary batteries. Perhaps that is so but the effect of it is pretty shattering. It may use only simple batteries but by the time those batteries have the capacity to knock a person out for a period of
1126
time he will realise why it was decided to put that into the category.
I was also grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, whose knowledge and use of weapons is so extensive as well as being unique. I was glad that he welcomed the Bill and that he did not agree with my noble friend Lord Burton. I was also grateful that he was so generous in his remarks about the previous chief constable.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that the firearms lobby was reasonable; that the Bill was a false surmise resulting from the incident at Hungerford and that we should do what the country wants. I can understand my noble friend taking a very severe view about the Bill; but I think that he will realise when he has heard—as he has—the views which have been expressed by various people, that the Government have tried to do what the public want; namely, to ensure that these lethal weapons are more securely held.
My noble friend Lord Swansea said that many people do not like the Bill and that much of it was irrelevant to Hungerford —of course it was. Hungerford might have been a catalyst for thought but this Bill goes much further than Hungerford. It was never intended to be related only to that incident. He asked me whether the Government would listen to reasoned argument. Of course we shall do so.
However, I only wish that such reasoned argument had been more evident in my noble friend's speech. He did not express one word of support, so far as I am aware, for the Bill; he did not acknowledge that there are those who have had the use of guns which were perfectly legally used; that this will have a great effect upon people and that the Government have considered that there was a case for controlling such weapons. Of course people will be affected. You cannot effect the law on firearms without impinging on the freedom of people. Further it is bound to affect certain people of whom my noble friend is fully aware and of whom he is a substantial leader.
However, I do not think that what he said about the courts not using the penalties they have and that the Government are using the old Victorian adage of telling people to see what the children are doing and then telling them not to do it, was reasonable. He said that the shooting fraternity was sick and tired of being treated as potential criminals or lunatics. No one has done this. The shooting community happen to operate with lethal weapons. All we are trying to do is to say that there ought to be greater control over these lethal weapons.
My noble friend used the argument of a Ferrari going into a bus queue, and he asked whether we would then ban all Ferraris. With respect to my noble friend, I think that that was the worst of all arguments. The answer is that of course all Ferraris would not be banned. However, cars are lethal weapons, and one must use them within certain confines. For example, sometimes you are only allowed to travel at 70 mph, sometimes at 50 mph and sometimes even at 30 mph. Further, if you happen to put your car where it should not be, then you may find that it is clamped. At the end of all this, you must also have a licence to show that you can control this lethal implement. However, you do not have to have

1127
a licence to use a firearm so, presumably, a car is a good deal more lethal than a firearm.
Many important points have been raised, and I shall, if I may, try to cover one or two of them. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked what consultations have been held. In addition to meetings and correspondence with a number of Members of this House and another place, Ministers have met representatives from the British Shooting Sports Council, which represents all aspects of shooting in the country, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Shooters Rights Association and the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission. Officials have also met representatives of many organisations, a list of which I have with me, but I do not propose to burden your Lordships by rehearsing it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, the point on consultation that I was attempting to make was that the Government arrived at their conclusions and their intentions without any consultation. There has been a great deal of consultation since, but that has not had any effect on the Government's opinion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has certain responsibilities which he must carry out. It is up to him to try, on behalf of the Government, to decide the right lines along which to go, and then of course there are consultations. I do not think that even my noble friend would consider that the interests he represents have the right to say what the law of protection in the country should be. They have the right to say how their interests may be affected.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, I was not criticising the consultations. I have read the clause, read the Home Secretary's speech and listened to the Minister. Why has there been so much criticism that there was no consultation? That was the point I was making.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think we are firing both barrels, so to speak, in opposite directions. I was trying to tell the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, what consultations there had been. My noble friend came up on another point and complained that the consultations had not been early enough. I think that we had better leave the matter there.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me about the double wording in Clause 3(1)(a) and (b). The wording is deliberate. It distinguishes the position with regard to Section 1 firearms. When one applies for a Section 1 firearms certificate, one must show a good reason for having the certificate in every case. The wording ensures that where one applies for a shotgun certificate one does not have to show a good reason in every case. However, it enables the chief officer of police to refuse to grant the certificate if he is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for having it.
The noble Lord asked about armour-piercing ammunition. We looked at the possibility of prohibiting it, but came to the conclusion that the definition makes that impractical at present. All ammunition has armour-piercing capabilities,
1128
depending on the type of ammunition. Some ammunition is sold as armour-piercing without necessarily having great penetrating power. In the circumstances, there is little to be gained by a general ban on such ammunition at present. If in future it proves possible to devise a suitable definition of armour-piercing ammunition or especially dangerous ammunition appears on the market, the Secretary of State will be able to use the reserve power to prohibit such items under Clause 1(4).
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The Minister will be aware that there is widespread concern in the police service, especially among chief officers, over the Government's inability to find an adequate definition of armour-piercing ammunition. I wonder whether he will meet my noble friend Lord Knights and I and perhaps some ACPO representatives to discuss the matter to see whether we can make some progress.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall be happy to do that. I realise the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. One of the problems is to decide what is armour-piercing. Anything will go through tin plate, but if we are dealing with six-inch thick metal the qualities described as armour-piercing would be somewhat different.
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, and my noble friend Lord Swansea referred to Michael Ryan's firearms certificate and to the Thames Valley police. My noble friend Lord Swansea said that there had been no inquiry, that the matter had been swept under the carpet and shooters had been penalised. That is not fair. The chief constable of Thames Valley has made a full report on the incident to his police authority. That report has been made public.
Although membership of an approved club is not a statutory requirement for the grant or a variation of a firearms certificate, Ryan was a full member of a gun club when he was granted his firearms certificate. He joined a second club before being authorised to acquire his Kalashnikov and Underwood rifles. Ryan's applications were dealt with in accordance with the normal procedures of the Thames Valley police and there is nothing to suggest that they were processed with undue speed or haste. However, the Police Complaints Authority is at present investigating these matters as a result of a formal complaint. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to take it any further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret referred to the possibility of a medical reference before a person is granted a certificate. We have consulted the British Medical Association on this. It has expressed the view that a general practitioner could not reasonably be asked to make a judgment as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, although he could offer a purely factual statement about an applicant's medical and psychiatric history and whether he was currently taking any psychotropic, hypnotic or controlled drugs. But general practitioners would have to retain the right to decline to offer such a statement, and there should be no legal obligation on them to perform this function. The BMA's view was that a fee ought also to be charged.

1129
In view of all this and the fact that only a negative factual statement would be offered rather than a positive judgmental one—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether I could help the noble Earl. My colleagues in this House have been extremely patient in listening to the speeches of others when they were making them. The noble Earl was, I think, just about to reach a stage where, with his usual courtesy, he was going to answer the various points that I made. Those are Committee points and I release the noble Earl completely from any discourtesy if he should now decide to wind up finally so that the House can have a happy weekend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nothing would please me more than to do that, but I think I ought not to take the suggestion of the noble Lord quite that far, just in case some other noble Lords were not so magnanimous in their views as is the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to air weapons. High-powered air weapons are already subject to the dangerous air weapons rules of 1969. They require a firearms certificate. The Firearms Act 1969 also imposes restrictions on the possession and use of any airgun by young people under 17. The Government are not persuaded that further restrictions on low-powered air weapons which would bear heavily on legitimate uses by large numbers of people should be introduced. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble friends Lord Swinton, Lord Peel and Lord Ironside referred to the memorandum. I should be happy to place a copy of that in the Library of the House in due course.
Various points were made about the consultative committee, and if I may I shall write to noble Lords about that. However, I remind your Lordships that the consultative committee's terms of reference are drawn wide so as to include the members of the sporting community. That was the reason they were drawn in that way and it is up to the Secretary of State to decide on the composition of that committee.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was concerned, and I know that the noble Lord,Lord Eden, had he taken part in the debate. would have been concerned, about museums having to deactivate or convert their firearms. The answer is that they will not have to do so. We made it clear that the conditions which the Home Secretary can attach to a museum licence will apply only to the safe custody of the firearms and the ammunition.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked why payments were only made for weapons held prior to 22nd September 1987. The whole principle behind the buy-in scheme is that payments will be made to people who bought guns without knowing that they were to become prohibited. If they bought guns after the date on which my right honourable friend made his Statement, they would know or should have known that they would most likely not be able to keep those guns. It is unreasonable to expect the general public to fund those payments.
There was some concern about the payments for guns or rifles. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie,
1130
said that if you had a £1,000 gun you would only get £150. The noble Earls, Lord Swinton and Lord Peel, and my noble friend Lord Wynford said that it was disgraceful that anyone should not to be properly compensated. My noble friend Lord Dilhorne made similar suggestions. The point I wish to make again is that the payment for rifles will be either £150 or 50 per cent. of the retail market price. In other words, if you go into a shop and pay so much for a new gun, you will get 50 per cent. of the average price for that gun. The reason for that provision is that we do not think it is right for the taxpayer to pay a sum higher than that which a seller would get for his secondhand gun when sold at auction. That would also include the dealer's mark-up.
I shall avail myself of the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and hope that other noble Lords will be contented. However, there is one point to which I should reply. My noble friend Lord Northesk asked whether visitors to the Channel Islands would need to apply for permits, and if so why. The answer is that they will. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom; they are dependent territories of the British Crown. Firearms and shotgun or equivalent certificates issued in those territories are not valid in Great Britain or vice versa. Visitors from the islands will have to obtain permits.
As regards shotguns, the law of the Isle of Man is even less strict than our own. A person does not require a shotgun certificate to acquire a shotgun. He merely buys the shotgun and then obtains a gun licence from another department. Therefore, the matter is not straightforward.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The many points that have been raised will be considered very carefully. Where appropriate, I shall write to noble Lords. I cannot guarantee to write to every noble Lord about every point. However, I shall write to noble Lords on the most important points.
Finally, perhaps I may repeat the purpose of the Bill. It is not wholly a reaction to Hungerford, although that was the matter that drew everyone's attention to a state of affairs in which powerful and lethal weapons were not under sufficient control. It is the purpose of the Bill to provide more control for shotguns and firearms so as to protect the public. In so far as the Bill is necessary to accomplish that, we recognise that it curtails the rights and freedoms of some people. The important point is to get the balance right. We think that it is right. We are prepared to consider any ways in which we can make it better.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Associated British Ports (Barrow) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments, the said amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before five o'clock.