Sitting of 18 April 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL. (By Order)
  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 April.
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 April.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 25 April.

    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 April.

    HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 April.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next six Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Government Policies (Impact)
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indices he relies upon to measure the impact of his policies upon the economy of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): The Government use a wide range of indicators.
    Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that the paucity of the information on regional matters, including regional unemployment—so startlingly increased today—shows that the Government are having difficulty managing fiscal aspects of the economy in the regions. Would not decentralisation of government to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom increase and improve economic performance?
    Mr. Mellor: That does not follow. On unemployment, it is interesting how well the Scottish economy has been holding up compared with what has been happening further south.
    Mr. Leighton: Is unemployment one of the indices? The Prime Minister said that he wants a classless society, which I understand to be an opportunity society. Has the Chief Secretary seen the news, out today, that the Government have destroyed all opportunities for 100,000 people, that there are now over 2 million people with no opportunities at all and that that figure is rising rapidly to 3 million? What is he going to do to apologise to those 2 million or 3 million people for whom the Government have destroyed all hope of opportunity?
    Mr. Mellor: The other statistics that the hon. Gentleman will not have failed to see are that 26·5 million people are in employment and that the number of jobs in Britain has increased by over 3 million in the past eight years. The rise in unemployment is regretted, but there is no reason why, as the upturn recommences, employment should not grow. It is not just the Government who might have something to do about that. What about the hon. Gentleman's friends in the trade unions and their attitude towards wage bargaining? Some of the wage increases that are being sought at a time of difficulty for many companies can result only in higher unemployment.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend contrast the effect of a Government taking positive action to get the economy right with the actions of their predecessor, when Labour Members were responsible for near bankruptcy?
    Mr. Mellor: That is absolutely right. All the key indicators in the 1980s showed a great recovery from the problems of the 1970s. Unfortunately, the Labour party has not learnt its lesson. Only yesterday it reiterated its proposal for a national minimum wage. Even if that led to only half the differentials being eroded, it could lead to 750,000 more people unemployed. Since Mr. Bill Jordan said that the differentials of his members will not be eroded

    555
    at all, that could add 1 million to the dole queue. The Labour party has nothing much to teach us about managing the economy.
    Mr. Butterfill: One of the indices that certain expert economists seemed keen on a little while ago was the pound's parity within the exchange rate mechanism. They said that we had entered at much too high a level and that this would cause terrible damage and prevent us from cutting interest rates. Should not those people be eating their words now?
    Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that we have been able to live within our place in the ERM. In our six months of membership, interest rates have fallen from 15 to 12 per cent., which is less than the average level of interest rates since 1979.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average annual growth rate for gross domestic product at factor cost from 1979 to 1991 using his Budget forecast for gross domestic product growth in 1991.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): 1¾ per cent.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that that figure does not compare favourably with the record of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979? The unemployment figures disclosed today, and the further decline in manufacturing industry, are partly responsible for the problems that we face. What will the Government do to rectify them?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friends will be amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should give me the opportunity to remind the House of the terrible state of the British economy in 1979 after five years of socialist mismanagement. Public spending was out of control, public borrowing was more than 5 per cent. of gross domestic product and there was incipient hyper-inflation. It took a little time to sort that out, but between 1981 and 1991, under this Government, the economy grew at just under 2½ per cent., compared with 1·4 per cent. between 1973 and 1979.
    Sir William Clark: Will my hon. Friend make a conjecture about what would happen to gross domestic product if income tax were increased from 50 to 59 per cent., with an income surcharge of 9 per cent., giving a total of 68 per cent? Would not that terribly affect our gross domestic product?
    Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend is right. It would be a rerun of the last half of the 1970s, when annual capital formation fell to one third of 1 per cent. a year, manufacturing output declined by 1½ per cent. a year and inflation averaged 15½ per cent.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister reflect on the significance of his answer that growth under the Government is 1·75 per cent. below the trend growth of the previous two decades? Is not that ample proof that the so-called transformation of the economy is complete rubbish? Growth is well below 2 per cent. and negative growth is causing high, dramatic unemployment, from which our people are suffering.
    Mr. Maples: I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) that we inherited an enormous problem. What happened in the first two years of this Government can be laid at the door of five years of socialist mismanagement. In the 1980s, the British economy grew faster than the German, French or Italian economies, investment and manufacturing productivity grew faster and we were on top of a league which, during the 1960s and 1970s, we were bottom. What is the difference? In the 1960s and 1970s we had Labour Governments.

    Charities
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from charities about the value added tax increase in the Budget; and what reply he has sent.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): We have received a number of such representations.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that charities estimate that the increase in VAT will cost them £33 million a year, bringing their total VAT payable to about £250 million. Help the Aged alone will have to find an extra £90,000 a year. This was an otherwise excellent Budget, so will my hon. Friend reconsider this most unconservative tax on charities?
    Mr. Maude: European obligations mean that there is little flexibility in the extent to which zero rating of VAT for charitable purposes can be extended. Tax reliefs for charities amount to about £800 million a year, including about £150 million of reliefs on VAT. Charities benefit to a considerable extent. It is worth putting it in context: the cost of the incrsease in VAT to charities is no more than a quarter of 1 per cent. of charities' annual turnover. In almost every Budget since the Government took office, we have done something with tax to help charities, as we did this year.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware of the effect of the increase on cancer research work at the Paterson Institute in Manchester? Does he know that its vitally important and humane work has already involved it in paying more than £1 million in VAT and that it faces a charge of £200,000 more, every penny of which has been raised from private donations? Is not that a worrying comment on the Government's approach to voluntary funded cancer research?
    Mr. Maude: I do not believe that it is. I am sure that the work about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks is excellent and is fully supported by the Government. I have spoken about the total amount of tax relief given to charities and I believe that it should be given. I have also made it clear that any Government, Labour or Conservative, have only limited flexibility, because of obligations within the European Community. I see no scope for making the changes that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The amount of voluntary giving to charities has doubled in real terms since 1979, and that is admirable.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Although it must be true that the modest increase in VAT will not benefit the incomes of charities, will my hon. Friend make it clear that no fewer

    557
    than six specific measures have been introduced in he past five Budgets, which have had a massive effect on the amount of charitable giving?
    Mr. Maude: That is entirely right. As I said, the amount of charity giving has increased and the Government have sought to encourage charitable giving by means of the gift aid scheme, which we introduced last year and extended this year, and the payroll giving scheme. They have been effective incentives to people to give generously. Everyone in the House will agree that it is good news that people have responded so generously to those incentives.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to extend the range of goods and services subject to value added tax.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I have no plans to extend the range of goods and services subject to VAT.
    Mr. Madden: Bearing in mind the burden of VAT, which means that the average family now pays £19 a week in VAT, and the fact that many people on low incomes, including pensioners, are having to pay the full VAT increase to finance the £140 reduction in the poll tax yet will not receive the full reduction, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a firm assurance to all families with children that items that are currently zero-rated, especially children's shoes, will continue to be so after 1992?
    Mr. Skinner: What about whips?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows more about them than I do.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked me to give an assurance and I have stated our policy. He will know that the extent of VAT is the subject of discussions within the European Community and the Council of Finance Ministers. We have made it clear that we regard the protection of zero rating as essential. Because basic necessities are exempt or zero-rated, we consider that it is right to make that switch in the Budget, which has been well received. It means that the poorest families will not suffer in any way.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the comments of the Financial Secretary a moment ago, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he would be prepared to make concessions on the VAT paid by charities, were it not for the restrictions imposed by the EEC?
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, we already have many reliefs—worth up to £800 million—for charities. That must be contrasted with the £35 million additional burden that the Budget placed on charities. Every year, the Budget contains additional measures to help charities, just as it did this year.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Chancellor recall saying last summer that the underlying rate of inflation was important because it left out the distortion of housing costs? Will not his VAT poll tax surcharge further increase an already worrying underlying rate? Does not that show two things? First, as last year, the Government are running risks with
    558
    inflation and secondly, when the Prime Minister spoke of taking inflation by the throat, he meant that he was force feeding it.
    Mr. Lamont: I should be interested to know whether the hon. Lady would reverse the VAT switch that we made in the Budget, because Labour has been extremely equivocal on that point. Inflationary pressures in the economy are measured by the underlying rate of inflation, producer prices, and the gross domestic product deflator. When one strips out one-off additions such as the VAT addition, it is clear that underlying as well as headline inflation continues to fall.
    Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable support for the maintenance of zero rating and for his policy of shifting part of the burden of local services from the local taxpayer to central taxation? Is he aware that there would be considerable support for taking that principle further, to avoid the need to reintroduce an unpopular property tax? If my right hon. Friend did that, he would share the credit for having taken part in the abolition of two unpopular taxes.
    Mr. Skinner: Come on, crack the whip.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seems to be obsessed with a certain subject— [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us return to the question.
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) gives to the change that we made in the Budget, but he must wait for the local government finance proposals, which we shall announce shortly.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate for the cost of military action in the Gulf so far.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dalyell—I am sorry; I was thinking of other things. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Mellor: Will you tell the House what you were thinking about, Mr. Speaker. No? I am disappointed, Sir. I shall have to answer the question.
    The latest estimate for the addtional defence costs, to be spread over several years, is that they are expected to be of the order of £2½ billion.
    However, I expect the bulk of these costs to be covered by cash contributions generously pledged by other Governments. In particular, although the Ministry of Defence's expenditure in 1991–92 is likely to be about £1½ billion above its planned level, I do not expect any significant net claim on the public expenditure reserve in the current financial year. Total cash contributions made or pledged by other Governments now total £2 billion, including the recent most generous pledge—which I am pleased to confirm and welcome—from the Government of Saudi Arabia of $1 billion.
    Mr. Dalyell: I apologise to the Minister for not having brought the report to his attention earlier. I had to check it because it was so incredible. Given the wealth that is going up in flames, does not the Treasury agree that it is beyond belief that Red Adair is complaining that he

    559
    cannot get six bulldozers? He asked for a minimum of eight, but only two work. He is threatening to pull out. Do not the British Government have some responsibility— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, they do. Do not the British Government have some responsibility; should not they say to the Kuwaitis that, with such wealth being lost, they should do something about tackling the fires, as that will grow more difficult as times goes on?
    Mr. Mellor: As always, the hon. Gentleman is courteous in phrasing his questions. As he knows, I have no responsibility for that matter. I shall draw it to the attention of the Foreign Office. No doubt, if there is anything in it, it will be looked at. This is not a part of the British Government's responsibilities.

    Coinage
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 January, Official Report, columns 509–10, what recent representations he has received about his planned changes to the coinage.
    Mr. Maples: Before it was decided to introduce the new 5p and 10p coins, the Royal Mint undertook extensive consultations with interested parties and the general public. We have received a few recent representations about the planned introduction of a new smaller lop coin and copper-plated 1p and 2p coins in September 1992.
    Mr. Speller: My hon. Friend received some representations on this matter. I have received representations from people who use fruit or stamp machines or coin-operated machines, such as those for tube tickets. First, one coin was changed, but now three more are to be changed. Every change adds to the operating costs of the people who own coin-operated mechanisms. Does my hon. Friend find, as I do, complete distaste among constituents for any change in the coinage, particularly with regard to Europe in the future?
    Mr. Maples: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. There was an extensive period of consultation in 1987 before the changes were announced. Among the people consulted were those in the vending industry, who were given two and a half years' notice and coins with which they could test the machines. We have agreed to delay the introduction of the further three new coins from June until September 1992. The industry has welcomed that and the fact that all three new coins will be introduced at the same time. Such changes inevitably impose costs on the vending industry which, in many cases, it will pass on to the customers. However, it would not be appropriate for the taxpayer to compensate the industry for that, if only because it is difficult to distinguish between changes that are the result of changes in the coinage and changes that are caused by other matters.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: When my hon. Friend next considers further possible changes or additions to the currency, will he discuss with the Master of the Mint, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the possibility of introducing a £2 coin for general currency, along the lines of those that are already used for commemorative purposes, as soon as the size slot occupied by the 10p coin becomes available for that purpose?
    Mr. Maples: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I am sure that he will he agree that there are almost as many views about what form the currency should take as people giving them. At present, there are no plans to make any further changes, other than those that have been announced. As he knows, there is a £2 commemorative coin, but the consultation did not reveal any desire or need for a £2 coin or for any changes other than those that we have announced.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of corporation tax in the United Kingdom; and what is the average in EC countries.
    Mr. Maude: The main rate of corporation tax will be 34 per cent. for 1990 and 33 per cent. for 1991, down from 52 per cent. in 1979. The European Community average, excluding the United Kingdom, for 1990 is 40.2 per cent. Germany's rate is 50 per cent.; Belgium's is 43 per cent. and France's is 34 per cent. Britain and Luxembourg now have the lowest main rate of corporation tax in the Community.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only is that exceptionally good news for British business men, because it means that they can retain a greater proportion of their profits for reinvestment in their own businesses, but it ensures that the British Isles is a far more attractive place for overseas investment than anywhere else in the European Community?
    Mr. Maude: That is correct. It is worth noting that 41 per cent. of investment by the United States in the European Community comes to Britain, that nearly 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe comes to Britain and that there is more German investment in Britain than in any other European Community country. That shows that we have created an extremely favourable environment for business here in Britain, which is beneficial for this country. This year's Budget alone released £.1 billion which would otherwise have been taken by the taxman, but which is now left for businesses to use for investment, if that is what they think right.
    Mr. Duffy: Although cuts in corporation tax will undoubtedly produce an increase in investment by the mid-1990s, could not the Chancellor have chosen other measures if he wished to produce a surge in investment, which is presumably desirable at this point? Would not a more fundamental measure for boosting investment in the short term be the introduction of investment allowances?
    Mr. Maude: We have had that before. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman might suggest, the real surge in investment occurred immediately after we abolished 100 per cent. capital allowances. Between 1986 and 1989, investment increased by no less than 43 per cent. to record levels. That was at precisely the moment when investment allowances of the sort to which I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring had been abolished.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the corporation tax level in this country is a good reason for us not to try to harmonise around some mean in the European Community, but to set an example for others to follow? When they begin to follow, we shall have already

    561
    got ahead of the game by attracting inward investment by companies which know that this is the best place for them to base themselves in the single European market
    Mr. Maude: The record entirely supports my hon. Friend's point. We should be aiming for a tax system that is simple and has low rates. That is what people and businesses want; it is what makes for a successful economy and it is what we shall continue to seek.
    Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware that in no other European country are the national governing bodies of sport required to pay corporation tax? There has been a strong lobby in this country for our national governing bodies not to have to pay it either. Is the Chancellor considering removing that requirement?
    Mr. Maude: As the hon. Lady knows, we have given the matter careful consideration. She brought a group of representatives from the sporting bodies to talk to me about it earlier this year; however, we do not think that such a move will be possible.

    Businesses
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what benefits will accrue to businesses from the measures announced in the recent Budget.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The cuts in corporation tax for businesses right across the spectrum and the measures that I announced to improve companies' cash flow will provide considerable help for businesses. In total, the Budget gives over £¾ billion to businesses this year.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reaction of business to his Budget is summed up best by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which said, "We are delighted"? His measures on corporation tax and VAT will give added confidence to industry as inflation falls and business optimism grows.
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not sure that I agree with him entirely, however. All the business representative organisations gave the Budget a warm welcome. The president of the CBI said that it was
    "a Budget for soundly based recovery, for saving and for investment".
    The Institute of Directors said that it
    "addresses the immediate economic ills of business as part of an imaginative long-term fitness campaign".
    Whatever Opposition Members may say, the Budget received a strong welcome from those who know about business.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the number of clauses in the Finance Bill that deal with business taxation. Is the Chancellor aware, however, that it is estimated that perhaps £2 billion of the amount that he will receive from corporation tax will be a tax on inflation? That will seriously affect the cash flow of a number of companies. Cannot the Chancellor take further action to help companies at serious times?
    Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should bring back stock relief—that we should adjust the tax system to accommodate inflation. I do not agree with that approach; I think that the correct policy is to reduce inflation.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the swingeing increase in excise duty on fuel is highly inflationary and very damaging to a vital part of our economy—the hauliers? All goods need to be taken from the point of production to the point of use.
    The amount that the Chancellor is giving business by way of reductions in corporation tax may well be more than offset by the increases in the uniform business rate, which takes account not only of inflation and the phasing out of transitional relief, but of the revaluation which has hoisted rates throughout the country.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have a stop to this pointing.
    Mr. Skinner: He is not a therapist.
    Mr. Winterton: I am not a banker.
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made another significant intervention from a sedentary position. Hon. Members have always wondered what made him so malicious and malign—we now realise that he has a deep-seated problem.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"]—should consider the increase in excise duties alongside the freeze in vehicle excise duty at the same time, which means that the increase in transport taxes is very much less than my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Beith: If business confidence has been as greatly boosted by the Budget as the Chancellor believes, why are firms laying off workers, thus producing record unemployment figures?
    Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the increase in unemployment reflects activity over many months and unemployment figures lag behind the general performance of the economy. I am still confident that, as I predicted in my Budget speech, we shall see an upturn in the second half of this year.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend take pride in the fact that the reduction in corporation tax and the carry-back of losses announced in this year's Budget have greatly assisted companies to weather the recession?
    Mr. Lamont: I very much agree with that. As I said, that was the reaction of the main organisations that represent businesses. I believe that the Budget was well received by business generally.

    Interest Rates
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Bank base rates are 12 per cent.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Chancellor consider undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the number of small businesses and their employees who have fallen victim to the Government's high interest rate policy? Because of the

    563
    importance of small businesses to the Scottish economy and to the rural economy in general, will he ensure that interest rates are taken into consideration combined with the importance of the business rate, which in Scotland runs at 58p in the pound as opposed to 38·5p in the pound in England?
    Mr. Lamont: Insolvencies in 1990 were under 1½ per cent. of the total stock of businesses. That should be kept in context, because there has been a dramatic rise in the number of new businesses formed in recent years. What really matters to businesses is getting inflation down. It is clear from the figures that the Government's strategy against inflation is succeeding month by month. We must not let up because it is most important for businesses.
    Mr. Salmond: The people will have noted the Chancellor's view that the economic damage suffered because of high interest rates has been so slight. Is not the truth that the damage has been not only severe, but wholly futile, because the Scottish economy has been dragged into an unnecessary recession by an interest rate policy designed for the economic conditions of the south-east of England? Whatever combination of the Chancellor's predecessors he chooses to blame, what responsibility will he accept for the economic blunders of the past few years?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury drew attention to how well the Scottish economy has withstood the recession that has affected the rest of the country. As I said to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), there is no gain for business in policies designed to accommodate inflation which is what the hon. Gentleman appears to want. He talks about the recession here as though there were not also a recession in the United States, in Canada and in several other countries.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on interest rate policy, but does he agree that businesses are anxious to know that the progressive nature of the half percentage cuts month by month is also part of that policy? Will he comment on the extent to which we shall be able to maintain such a policy for the United Kingdom and not have it deflected by European requirements?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate or reveal the future trend of interest rates as I see it. I have made it clear that further reductions in interest rates must depend on progress month by month against inflation. Business and the House very much welcome the fact that, far from our being boxed in by membership of the exchange rate mechanism, we have reduced interest rates by three points since we joined the ERM and by two points since December.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the pound in the ERM has behaved so well and successfully, and as the Treasury target of 4 per cent. inflation by the end of the year is well set to be reached, there is scope for further interest rate reductions in due course?
    Mr. Lamont: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not reply further to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw).

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives from the Trade Union Congress to discuss child benefit.
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC from time to time in a number of different contexts.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister appreciate that when the Chancellor recently increased child benefit by 25p for second and subsequent children, his generosity was not appreciated by the country because people would like him to explain what that 25p will buy in terms of food and clothing for children?
    Mr. Mellor: To qualify for the 25p for the second child, one has to have a first child for whom an extra £1 was given. The total benefit to the family in that tranche alone was £1·25. Expenditure this year on child benefit will be more than £5 billion compared with under £2 billion when the Labour Government were in office. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Notwithstanding the rather carping criticism by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), will my right hon. and learned Friend take it from me that the announcement by the Chancellor in the Budget on child benefit was warmly welcomed by those of us who, over many years and without, dare I say it, much encouragement from former Chancellors, have testified to the continuing need to maintain child benefit? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also accept our pleasure that we now have a sign that child benefit will not be allowed to wither on the vine, as many of us had feared?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. The fact that child benefit is to be uprated in line with inflation is worthy of my hon. Friend's commendation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to others who argued the case. He may be interested to know that the efforts of the Government and of Conservative Members during the past decade have meant that expenditure on families with children has increased by 32 per cent. in real terms during the 1980s. He may also be interested to know that expenditure on families with children fell by 7 per cent. in real terms when the Labour party was last in power.
    Mr. Boateng: Why, with the United Kingdom lagging behind the rest of the European Community on child benefit —fourth, fifth or seventh depending on the age and number of children—do the Government continue to dither on whether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes, dither. Why do the Government continue to dither about whether they expect women to stay at home or to go out to work? Is not the challenge to ensure that women have a real choice and to give them the level of child benefit and employers the level of nursery taxation to enable women to have that choice?
    Mr. Mellor: I enjoyed that question. I am not sure that it shed much light on the debate, but I enjoyed it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the upratings in child benefit announced in the Budget, as well as those that took place this month, have been a substantial contribution to assisting families with children including, interestingly, the poorest 25 per cent. of families, who, in the uprating

    565
    announced in the Budget, will not suffer clawback on their family credit arrangements. The Labour party costed its shadow Budget on the basis that it would claw back the increase in child benefit from those who were in receipt of income support.
    Mr. Batiste: Although it is obviously right for my right hon. and learned Friend to consult the TUC on this and others matters, may I ask him to confirm that the Government have no intention of returning to the bad old days of beer and sandwiches, as now advocated by the Labour party? Does he agree that attempts at corporatist planning damaged the economy in the past and would do so again?
    Mr. Mellor: I said that my right hon. Friend "meets" the TUC; the word "consultation" was not used. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the Labour party has a formidable task if it is to explain precisely what its cosy little arrangement with the TUC would do to the economy.

    Value Added Tax
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish any available information on the impact of the 2·5 per cent. value added tax increase on a low wage economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maples: Any increase in the rate of VAT will bear less heavily on poorer households than on the better-off because of the extensive zero-rating of necessities.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that, apart from growing unemployment, increased costs—I am thinking especially of clothing and telephone bills—will have an effect on people earning low wages and those on low fixed pensions?
    Mr. Maples: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Budget increase in VAT was accompanied by a substantial reduction in the community charge. A married couple benefiting from that reduction would have to spend more than £13,000 a year on goods subject to VAT before being worse off. However far down the income scale one goes, one will find that people are better off because necessities are not subject to VAT.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House. I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Leighton: Has the Prime Minister noticed the growing chorus of concern and complaint, from organisations like the London Chamber of Commerce and the London tourist board, about the shabby state of London, the increasing congestion and the deteriorating quality of life? Why is it that London, alone among the great cities of the country and among the capital cities of the western world, has no democratic authority to give strategic guidance or leadership to the city? For example,
    566
    should we bid for the Olympics? There is no forum in which to discuss the matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time for new thinking? Surely the Prime Minister, who has had a number of addresses in London, should put his mind to this question.
    The Prime Minister: If parts of London are scruffy, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is because they have Labour local authorities.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Is not this a very sad day for the Leader of the Opposition——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is putting a question to the Prime Minister.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Is not it the case that the rate of inflation is falling fast, that mortgages are being reduced as of today, that sterling stands firm in the exchange rate mechanism and that the largest rescue operation in modern times—the one to assist the Kurds—is now going strong? Are not these things due entirely to the initiative and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does not the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) face another five years of hard and fruitless labour?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Prime Minister answer only the hon. Member's first question?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I think that he underestimates the record of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman has lost practically a record number of elections and will in due course lose another.
    Mr. Kinnock: On the question of records, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that today's record rise in unemployment is a personal tragedy for those people who have lost their jobs and a personal failure for him? Does he agree that anyone who has been the cause of so many other people losing their jobs should lose his?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly share with the right hon. Gentleman very considerable concern about the people who have lost their jobs; we all share that concern. However, although the right hon. Gentleman is against unemployment in principle, he supports in practice policies that would create it—not least, as a Welsh Member, failing to be here earlier this week to vote for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which would provide 25,000 jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: The reason why I was not in the House on that occasion was that Her Majesty did me the enormous honour of inviting me and my wife to spend the night with the royal family at Windsor castle. I thought that the Prime Minister's many advisers might have drawn his attention to the Court Circular.
    I heard what the Prime Minister said in his efforts to rebut the charges relating to unemployment. Since he became Prime Minister, 330,000 more people have lost their jobs, all as a direct result of his economic policies. Is not it obvious that he is truly the Prime Minister of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will now confirm to the House that he will support the Government Bill on Cardiff bay which will provide 25,000 jobs. While he is about it, perhaps he will explain why he wants to introduce a minimum wage, which would cost 1 million jobs in this country.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is not it significant that the first group that my right hon. Friend was able to persuade of the merits of his bold initiative for safe havens in Iraq was the Heads of Government of the European Community? Did not that strengthen his hand a great deal in persuading President Bush, who was initially reluctant to agree to that initiative? Does not that show the potential and importance of European political co-operation?
    The Prime Minister: We have worked very closely throughout this matter with the European Community, the United Nations and the President of the United States. I believe that that coalition of forces has now provided the right answer to deal with the immense tragedy that we are currently seeing in Iraq.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the Prime Minister proud of today's unemployment figures? Do they represent what he calls the bottoming out of the economy or the bottom falling out of the economy? Which is it? Does he have any bold and heroic initiatives to help the growing army of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: The policies that the hon. Gentleman and his party support would create a level of unemployment never previously seen in this country. The way to ensure secure employment is to bring inflation down and keep it down, and that battle we are winning.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland realise that there are more people in work today in Scotland than at any time and that they are earning much more money, their take-home pay in real terms being 30 per cent. above what it was in 1979? There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads; these are facts.
    Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the British people respect the leadership that he has provided during the Gulf war and in proposing policies which have resulted in troops being assembled to provide safe havens for the Kurds?
    The Prime Minister: The people of Scotland also know that across the United Kingdom there are substantially more jobs now than there were in 1979, that the rate of unemployment in this country is below the European average and that in the past year we have had more jobs than we have had for many years—[Interruption.]—and far more than we ever had under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April 1991.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the problems of the upland hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere who, on top of crippling interest rates and pitifully low livestock prices, are now having to face paying for the disposal of the carcases of
    568
    their dead animals? What does he intend to do for family farms to keep employment in the countryside in my area and elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some time ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced substantial increases in hill livestock compensatory allowances. They were well received by the agricultural community and should specifically help farmers similar to those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was this Government who gave the opportunity to trade unionists to vote in secret ballots, this Government who gave the opportunity to council house tenants to buy their homes, this Government who gave people the opportunity to opt out of local education authority control and this Government who gave people the chance of better opportunities generally?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The only opportunities that people will get from the Opposition is the opportunity yet again to do what their trade union leaders tell them to do, what their council leaders tell them to do and what any future Labour Government might tell them to do.
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April 1991.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity finally to dispel allegations of dithering by announcing decisively what the country wants to hear, which is that there will be a June general election? If, as I suspect, he is still not clear in his own mind on that subject, will he be issuing a consultation document?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman crisply that when we hold the election we shall win it.

    Nuclear Test Veterans
    Mr. Higgins: To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing on 4 December 1990, Official Report, column 170, when he intends to complete his consideration of the case for compensation for British nuclear tests veterans and their widows; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: An independent study is currently being conducted. The Government's position is that they are ready to pay compensation if there is firm evidence that participation in the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme caused the cancer.
    Mr. Higgins: The Prime Minister will recall that in answer to a previous question he gave a sympathetic and urgent reply in response to the plight of haemophiliacs. This case is clearly more complex, although in many respects it is even more deserving. Hon. Members who, at their surgeries and interview evenings, see constituents suffering from appalling cancers who were given no protection from the atomic tests in the south Pacific, believe that action is long overdue and that compensation should be paid urgently. Will my right hon. Friend proceed with his inquiry with the greatest possible speed?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall proceed in that fashion and try to ensure minimum delay. The practical problem is the limited number of appropriate medical experts. Nevertheless, I shall do what I can to ensure that the report is produced as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Orme: If the Cabinet agreed this morning on the poll tax provision —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that this is a definitive question.
    Mr. Orme: But, Mr. Speaker ——
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it would be right to have a second bite at it. The question before the House is about nuclear tests. Perhaps we had better move on.

    Engagements
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maclennan: Can the Prime Minister explain, in the light of the discussion that he had this morning, how any local tax which combined the poll tax and the rates could possibly be related to ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that we propose to publish early next week, with exemplifications, the way in which we think that we should proceed in terms of local government taxation. He will find no difficulty in seeing the answer to his question then.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with the Soviet Union still in turmoil it would be folly for the United Kingdom unilaterally to dispose of its independent nuclear deterrent so long as other potential aggressors possess theirs? Does he agree that those who in the past have been passionate supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament should not be trusted by the British people with the defence of our country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. The maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent is absolutely vital to the future security of our country. I am surprised that some others are less consistent in their principles on this point.

Safe Havens (Iraq)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the assistance which our armed forces are already providing to the relief effort for the Kurds in Iraq and our plans now to support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal for the establishment of safe havens in Iraq.
The Royal Air Force has now been operating in Turkey for 10 days, delivering supplies in the most difficult conditions. Hercules aircraft have already delivered more than 240 containers to the refugees in the high mountains. More recently Chinook helicopters have significantly increased our capability to reach the most inaccessible places and to continue operating in severe weather conditions. Yesterday, when bad weather meant that little else could operate, one Chinook alone made no fewer than eight successful supply missions. In addition to the existing three Chinooks available for this operation, two more Chinooks reached Turkey yesterday and a further four are due to arrive today. This will treble our heavy lift capability and, with our continuing Hercules effort, will now comprise a really significant supply capability.
The next priority, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, is to get the refugees down from the mountains and into the temporary safe havens which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed. That will not happen unless the refugees have confidence that they will be safe from Saddam Hussein. I can now tell the House the steps that we are taking to provide that security as quickly as we can and to initiate Operation Haven, as it is being called.
At the same time as the Foreign Secretary was making his statement yesterday, a team from my Department was completing the initial planning with the United States commanders, and we have been in close touch with the French Defence Ministry as well. We are particularly grateful also for the excellent help of the Turkish Government in these efforts.
A reconnaissance and advance party left this morning to prepare for the arrival of the first elements of our forces which will leave within the next 48 hours. I have decided that these forces will be based mainly on 3 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines are particularly well suited for rapid deployment and trained to operate in mountain areas. The brigade will include specialists in engineering, water supply, communications and medical and hygiene personnel. It will include substantial logistic support to sustain these operations, which are being conducted in very difficult terrain and weather, and well forward from the main airhead. They will also have Royal Navy Sea King helicopters which normally operate with the brigade. The brigade commander, Brigadier Andrew Keeling, is with the advance party which is arriving now at Incirlik. The present plan is that the bulk of the brigade will be based in Turkey with units rotating into Iraq.
The camps will probably take the form of a number of tented villages around a central distribution point and the aim will be that, so far as possible, the Kurds should be assisted to organise themselves within the camps with our forces providing the security.
572
The House will recognise that this is not an ordinary military operation. We are here engaged in humanitarian relief on a massive international scale when time is of the essence. It is a temporary arrangement to provide shelter and supplies to hundreds of thousands of people who desperately need them and to give them the confidence that, in these havens, they will be safe. That is our purpose and every effort is now being devoted to achieving it as quickly as we possibly can.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I am sure that the whole House will thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We are already indebted to the RAF for the sterling work that it has undertaken.
Can the Secretary of State tell us the size of the contributions from the United States and France? Does he think that the Franco-British contribution could have been sufficient on its own? I know that it is difficult, but can he give any estimate of the likely time that our troops will have to serve there? Will he bear it in mind that many right hon. and hon. Members recall that British troops were sent into Northern Ireland for a humanitarian purpose in 1969 and are still there.
Will the Secretary of State explain the rules of engagement, expand upon what he said and confirm that the aim will be to protect the refugee camps once the people have been brought down from the mountains? Can he assure the House that those camps will not become guerilla bases as that could easily happen if armed Kurds are allowed to take their weapons into refugee camps? Will he give us some idea of the nature of the air support that will protect our forces?
Finally, I note what the Secretary of State said about the RAF heavy-lift capability. In the event of its becoming inadequate for the purposes of the operation, will he look to civilian and other sources of heavy-lift support to carry on that vital work? I repeat that we welcome the Secretary of State's statement and wish our troops a speedy and effective solution to this dreadful problem.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for his tribute to the RAF, which was very well judged. All right hon. and hon. Members have seen the conditions and the terrain over which our forces are operating. It is interesting that their skills will be shown not least by the Sea King helicopter pilots in 3 Commando Brigade who are trained to operate in the mountains where their particular skills and courage will be shown to great advantage.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were doing enough and whether the French and British could cope on their own. The reality is that at present I am talking entirely about the Turkish border with Iraq, but there are also huge problems on the Iranian border, so we need all the help we can get. In that connection, I was pleased to hear from the Netherlands Defence Minister this morning that it is likely that the Netherlands will wish to join and contribute to the relief operation. That is excellent news.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer about the length of time, but I think that he is not challenging in any way the need for this humanitarian action and we are grateful for his support.
Obviously, we do not disclose rules of engagement in public, but they include the right to self-defence. That is implicit in them at all times and when our forces are

573
involved in that task we shall ensure that they are equipped and work under rules and regulations that enable them to protect themselves properly.
We are not prepared to see camps becoming guerilla bases. They are intended for humanitarian purposes to save lives. We will not allow armed Kurds to use them as bases from which to pursue their campaigns, not least in the interests of the security and safety of our own forces who are guarding those camps. It would be most unsatisfactory if those camps contained factions of armed men who could put our people in a very dangerous position.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will understand it if, in a developing situation, I give preference today to those hon. Members who were not called yesterday or on Monday.
Dame Janet Fookes: Having watched the Royal Marines in training on moors, in mountains and in the Arctic over some years, may I commend the choice of these excellent, elite troops? None could do a better job and I hope that they will set a standard that other nations will follow.
Mr. King:I know my hon. Friend's close interest in the Royal Marines. As she knows, they have just returned from an exercise in the mountains of Norway and are very ready to climb another mountain.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his work on this matter, but express great reservations about the setting up of these camps. If a solution can be found from any talks between the Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi Government and an agreement requiring an international guarantee can be drawn up, would the Prime Minister be prepared to go to the United Nations to seek a resolution providing powers for the enforcement of such an international guarantee?
Mr. King: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is well judged. My statement merely shows the speed with which we are carrying out my right hon. Friend's initiative and our determination to make sure that it is implemented.
The hon. Gentleman expressed reservations. I do not know his proposal or whether he has an alternative way to remove people from the high mountain areas in quite appalling climatic conditions where we are close to the last few minutes of getting people on the mountains down into areas in which they have some chance of survival. Far from having reservations about my right hon. Friend's initiative, I believe that it is the only possible way in which that can be achieved.
The hon. Gentleman put certain hypothetical proposals about the outcome. That does not fall directly to me. I made it clear that we are in phase 1. We are now looking to the situation in which we can move to phase 2 during which people can return to their homes in safety and confidence. It is not our purpose to see those people permanently established in temporary camps in the mountains. The initial purpose is to save lives, but it is not the long-term solution.
Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend pass to his staff in the Ministry of Defence and to our services all down the line our renewed thanks for the
574
speed, efficiency and professionalism that we have come to expect from them when they are responding to a crisis? While we get on with the immediate task and, given the exemplary leadership shown by the Prime Minister and the Government in moving ahead of world opinion in this matter, will my right hon. Friend, possibly through the military commission in the United Nations, make every effort to get more robust support from that organisation so that we can repeat the success of the relief of Kuwait with the full United Nations authority in carrying out this very important humanitarian task?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks from a position of considerable experience. All those concerned in my Department and the military side have moved with exemplary speed to initiate this activity. I assure my hon. Friend that he will see things happening very fast in the hours and days ahead. It is right to recognise that many of our friends and allies are also moving with considerable speed to make their contribution. Obviously, the United States is important and we are in close touch with the French. I mentioned the Dutch, and the Germans are also making their contribution. Turkey is the host nation and I am grateful to the Turkish Government for their support. I understand that Prince Sadruddin of the United Nations has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Iraqi Government about the operations of the United Nations agencies in Iraq. I think that we shall now start to see the United Nations agencies playing an active part as well, which is what we wish to see.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's account of the professionalism of the Royal Air Force entitles the House to have the confidence that all our forces will prove more than adequate for the difficult and sensitive task that has been entrusted to them. Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that we would be right to be concerned about the safety of our forces? Can he assure the House that, if any of our forces or those in their care come under any threat, all military means at the disposal of the allies will be used to neutralise that threat?
Mr. King: We have given the Iraqi Government a clear warning that our purposes are entirely humanitarian and that we are determined to ensure that those to whom we bring aid can be safe. We have given the clearest warning that that activity is not to be interfered with. I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the absolute assurance that were there to be any such attempt to do that, it would be dealt with very severely indeed. I say that at the Dispatch Box to ensure that anyone listening who may be uncertain about the matter is left in no doubt whatever.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will our forces going to Iraq have the use of airfields in that country during the phase, when they go in and thereafter?
Mr. King: The initial base is Incirlik. That is the main airhead from which we are operating.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is leaving today for Turkey and Iran, with a team, to see in what ways we can help the Iranians with their tremendous work for the Kurdish refugees. We shall be anxious to see what facilities may be available to help in that way.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that the aim of eventually restoring the Kurds to their homes must be the basic reason behind any action undertaken by the Government? But would not it have been better if the Ministry of Defence had foreseen that, at the conclusion of hostilities, many thousands of people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and on the Iranian borders would be in need of medical assistance? It was not hidden from our knowledge that that would be the case. Why, therefore, did the right hon. Gentleman's Department, at the cessation of hostilities, arrange for thousands of pounds worth of medical equipment, including saline drips and hypodermic syringes, to be systematically destroyed in Saudi Arabia? Why did his Department refuse the request by the Saudi authorities for those medical supplies and undertake an orgy of destruction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I have photographic evidence should the House wish to question it. I have photographs of British troops destroying medical equipment that could have been used to help to relieve the ordeal of the Kurds. I have asked an important question; I hope that the Secretary of State can answer it.
Mr. King: The charge that the hon. Gentleman makes is very serious. I am amazed that he should make such a charge against the medical staff—the nurses and doctors who went out to save lives and bring medical help to those who suffered injury during the campaign. The hon. Gentleman gave me no notice of his question. I take the matter very seriously, although the hon. Gentleman seems to be more interested in performing a publicity stunt in the House than in drawing the matter seriously to my attention so that it can be looked into.
Mr. Robert Banks: All those who have been appalled at the scenes of horror among the Kurdish refugees owe a great debt to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for what he has achieved and for the statement. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that representatives of the United Nations are present as early as possible, that they have access to the villages where the Kurdish people lived previously and that they play a part in helping them to resettle?
Mr. King: That is certainly our objective. We are moving very fast. We had taken the decision before it was certain, for example, that the memorandum of understanding would be signed today. That memorandum of un-derstanding is good news because it means that the agencies can now start operating in Iraq. We shall be looking to the agencies to take over the operation of the camps at the earliest possible time while we ensure that the camps are safe.
Mr. David Trimble: We appreciate that the need for speed and particular skills makes it entirely appropriate that our forces should be deployed in the way that the Secretary of State described. But does he appreciate the desirability of replacing our troops as soon as possible with a multinational United Nations force? The Secretary of State also referred to the rules of engagement of the troops to be deployed there and said that they included the right for them to defend themselves. Will he also confirm that the rules include the right for them to defend the camps at which they are deployed?
Mr. King: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that they will have appropriate rules of engagement to do the job which they are going there to do. I also assure him that we wish to see it become a United Nations operation as soon as possible, but he will understand why we have not held up the achievement of that further objective in the interests of the absolute need for speed.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the integration of command in the Gulf war and the other collaborative arrangements made among the allies were one of the principal factors which led to the success of the coalition. In view of the fact that there is now a new leader of collaboration in the new enterprise, can he assure the House that sufficient attention is being paid to ensuring that there are proper integration and proper collaborative measures to ensure that there will be no muddle should an untoward event take place?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of the command and control arrangement. We are discussing it and the advance party which is going out will be talking about it. We shall run the operation from the joint headquarters at High Wycombe, but the operation on the ground, which was coming under the European command of the United States forces in Europe, is moving to Turkey, with a United States lieutenant-general in command. We are considering the best way of integrating with them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State said that the havens were being set up principally on a humanitarian basis. The second phase of the policy is to get the Kurds back to their towns and villages. Presumably the third phase is for the United Nations to take over. In that process, is not it conceivable that his people will tell him that one of the reasons why the Kurds have been engaged in a continual battle against the Saddam regime is that, notwithstanding what has happened recently, they believe that they should have their own homeland, called Kurdistan? Once the Government get involved in another country, as is the case in this instance, they will have to take a view about that. Do the Secretary of State and the Government agree that Kurdistan should be set up in that region? Now that they are involved, I think that they will have to make that decision at some point.
Mr. King: Obviously those issues, which have existed for a long time, will arise. If we are to engage now in a debate on them, that can only obstruct the establishment as soon as possible of the relief operation that we wish to see. My concern is exclusively to bring immediate assistance and relief to people who are on the very edge of their lives and whom we need to help quickly if they are to be helped at all.
Mr. Neil Thorne: We must all congratulate the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend on the speed and efficiency with which they have mounted the operation. It is early days yet, but has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the large number of units that wish to be associated with the exercise? In doing so, will he reach an early conclusion about how frequently he will turn the units round so that other units may have the opportunity to get experience in that part of the world?
Mr. King: With his knowledge of the armed forces, my hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the most moving

577
experiences for me in what is happening. It is a case not of finding units that are willing to go but of facing the anger and disappointment of those that are not asked to go. Certainly we shall take into account the point which my hon. Friend has made because there is tremendous enthusiasm and willingness. Some of the Chinook pilots to whom we have paid tribute, who have only recently returned from the Gulf and who were on leave, volunteered to return from leave because they were anxious that their resources and skill should be used.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Although we accept the two-stage approach announced by the Secretary of State, does he agree that the entire area has seen a series of systematic rebellions and upheavals by the Kurdish people in Iraq, Turkey and Iran over 70 years and that we bear the largest share of responsibility for that because it was this nation which betrayed the Kurdish people and denied them a Kurdistan 70 years ago? Does he accept that, as well as doing all that must be done now, the only long-term solution that will bring peace and security to the Kurds is for them to have the right to determine their own future which every other people should have?
Mr. King: Those issues will no doubt continue to be debated by the House and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. My statement today dealt exclusively with this urgent and critical task. Nobody in the House underestimates how short time may be to bring help to avert what could otherwise be an absolute catastrophe.
Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speed and professionalism with which the Government and Britain's armed forces respond to such crises and challenges, whether combat or humanitarian, command the admiration of the world? Can my right hon. Friend say something of the logistics involved and the medical back-up that will be provided?
Mr. King: I am grateful for the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid to our armed forces. The logistics are being worked out now. It will be difficult to operate in an area without much of the infrastructure that we would seek, but we shall have substantial logistical back-up and medical and hygiene teams will be available. We are looking at the scale of that, which will depend parties on what others provide, what is available there and what the United Nations agencies can provide. That is what the reconnaissance advance parties are working on now.
Mr. Max Madden: If the term "temporary arrangement" is not to haunt the Government and the nation, do the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister accept that the only effective way of persuading the Kurds from the mountains and, more importantly, back to their towns and villages will be real and genuine progress towards establishing a self-governing, autonomous Kurdistan guaranteed by the United Nations"
What discussions have taken place with Iran and what role will the United Nations play in securing the safe havens? Will there be joint United Nations and non-United Nations forces? If not, when will the United Nations become directly involved in the responsibility for security and administration of the safe havens?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that our policy is to support the Kurdish pursuit of an autonomous region within a democratic Iraq and not an independent Kurdistan. Having said that, I do not think that anybody in the House who knows anything about the area or the background does not realise the problems and all the reasons why it would have been much safer to have stayed out of this entirely. We are not staying out because the humanitarian needs of hundreds of thousands of people are of overriding urgency and we must act. I believe that it is the overwhelming view of the House to support the Prime Minister in that determination.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister took an extremely important and courageous initiative in proposing a safe haven in the first place? Does he also agree that those who were stupid enough to criticise what he did and to suggest that it was gesture politics were talking through their hats? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister deserves all the support that Conservative Members and the House can give him to ensure that this courageous decision comes to a satisfactory conclusion?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These are tough decisions to take. We are embarking upon major undertakings, but we believe that they are right. This is the only way in which the help could have been brought as effectively as it will be now.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his choice of the Royal Marines to assist the Kurds. I know from contact with the Marines in my constituency that their skills, expertise and dedication will be a match for any task given to them. Will the Secretary of State further clarify the details of the operation that will be undertaken and will he come to the House as soon as possible to give details of the chain of command? Will he assure us that the welfare of the men and communication with their families back home will remain a priority throughout these operations?
Mr. King: We paid much attention to communications. We shall, first, establish the aid agencies to ensure that supplies get through. Satellite communications have been established in the area by our first Royal Air Force forces and we shall try to ensure that the forces involved are able to maintain them. I shall seek to keep the House informed as this rapidly moving scene develops.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is possible only because we have high-quality armed forces available to do the job and because the Government have the political resolution to send them? Does he further agree that it is hypocritical of those who opposed the use of force against any of Saddam Hussen's excesses to criticise the quality of our aid to the Kurds?
Mr. King: This is a further occasion—we have seen it in other emergencies—when we have good reason to thank the quality, calibre and capability of our armed forces. They are undertaking challenging missions that nobody else could do. That would not be possible unless the Government were prepared to invest in training, equipment and pay for those forces year after year.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not it vital that we make the sharpest possible distinction between humanitarian aid and the establishment of safe havens, which I and the overwhelming majority of British people support? Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever the outcome of the Kurdish wish for automony, the political promotion of any group in Iraq, be it Kurds, Shi'ites or anyone else, must be a matter for the people of Iraq when they are free from the criminal tyranny of Saddam Hussein? All that we need do is provide aid to ensure that human beings—men, women and children— do not continue to exist in the present conditions.
Mr. King: That is certainly our purpose, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of it. It is the overwhelming view of the House and of the country that it is necessary.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the attempts of some newspapers, and certainly tonight's Evening Standard, to sow distrust among the allies—the British, French and American Governments—who have worked together so splendidly on this operation, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister played so notable a role?
Mr. King: It is encouraging, as the area and the Turkish bases are on the fringes of NATO, to see that quick and immediate co-operation has developed among the principal countries involved.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): May I commend the Prime Minister for his initiative in the provision of safe havens for the Kurdish refugees? I wish the venture every success. However, despite the Secretary of State's reluctance to enter into discussion on self-determination for the Kurds, does he recognise that if the Kurdish refugees are to be persuaded to leave this difficult terrain they will need some guarantees about their future? Will he at least ensure that there is an international peace conference to consider this at an early date?
Mr. King: My purpose is to determine that whatever the future may be for the Kurdish people there are some Kurdish people able to enjoy it. I am putting it bluntly, but the situation is as serious as that. Anyone who has any knowledge of the conditions, of where the camps are and of the altitude in the mountains knows that time is not on our side. That is why it was imperative to get them down from the mountains. We have no guarantee that it will succeed, but we believe that it is the best approach to the initial phase of saving the Kurdish people.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House is most impressed by the speed with which he has put this operation into effect? Will he pass on to the Royal Air Force the House's praise for the airmanship and skill being shown by the helicopter and Hercules air crew, and by the ground crew serving them, in carrying out this operation in difficult terrain and weather?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has knowledge of the services. We sometimes take them for granted and when we switch on our televisions we expect to see the services doing their job. Most people do not begin to understand the incredibly difficult circumstances in which they operate, the speed with which they arrived at their destination and the accuracy of the work that they
580
are now doing in countries that they have never seen before. I have had the opportunity to see at fairly close quarters that incredibly impressive operation.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister accept from one who has consistently supported the Kurds that humanitarian assistance is welcome and desperately needed? However, will he turn his attention again to the long-term political question? Unless the right of the Kurdish people to self-determination is recognised, the civil war in that region will continue. There is a great danger of foreign forces ending up deciding the future of the countries in that region interminably, as part of a civil war. Does he agree that the Kurds have been denied their right to self-determination for too long and that it is time that their rights were recognised?
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear our position on what a fair future for the Kurdish people should be. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not ducking the question, but identifying the critical first priority. I do not think that he challenges that. His questions are academic unless we succeed in phase 1, which is to save the lives of the Kurds in the high mountain areas, who probably now number more than 1 million. They are living in unsuitable climates and at unsuitable altitudes and will not be able to survive for much longer. It is a pressing priority to get them down into a climate and in circumstances that give them some prospect of survival.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been a huge sense of relief in the House that the decisive lead given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met with such an overwhelming professional response from our ground and air forces? Would he care to comment on the number of military personnel currently involved and, if he has any idea, of the civilian backup that will doubtless be needed to assist in running the camps? Having started with such commend-able zeal with the safe havens, could there be a demand for similar activity lower down, in Iran and so on, and are the operations flexible enough to deal with those?
Mr. King: In the first air and helicopter deployment some 350 service men were involved. That will rise fast now, with further helicopters arriving in the past two days and with further supplies and logistic support. I shall check the figure, but it must be about 600 now. My hon. Friend mentioned the announcement of 3 Commando Brigade. The number will be between 3,000 and 5,000, depending on logistic support and the resources that we find there. The matter is now under active consideration by the advance recce party, which I sent this morning and which is due to arrive in exactly five minutes time. That will be one of the first questions that they look at. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the needs faced in Iran, which is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is on her way there now. We shall wait for her reports on how we can help.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern and generosity of the United Kingdom public when they have seen the plight of the Kurds? They have given thousands of tonnes of foodstuff, medical supplies, blankets and clothing to organisations such as British Aid for the Kurds. That organisation is experiencing storage problems and difficulties with moving from storage the goods that

581
have been collected so that they can be taken to the area where they are needed. The goods that are stored in Northern Ireland present a particular problem. It is important that a partnership is opened between the Government and such organisations to ensure that the material that has been donated goes where it is needed. If we send troops only to protect the Kurds, who are freezing, starving and dying, there is a limit to the activity in which we are engaged. Therefore, will action be taken by the Government to co-ordinate activities and to work with those voluntary organisations?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's point is extremely important. It is vital that the goods that are given through the generosity and good will of the British people are properly delivered. The services are playing a major part in ensuring that those goods are not wasted and that they can be delivered where needed.
The Minister of State—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is sitting beside me —will have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Ministry of Defence is more concerned with delivery at the other end. It is important that the whole channel works, and I shall ensure that that point is looked into.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I welcome this positive move. How many military doctors, nurses and other medical staff will accompany the Royal Marines? Does my right hon. Friend agree that at this critical time our military medical staff can play an important role in helping the Kurds in these dreadful conditions?
Mr. King: There certainly will be some medical staff. The degree to which we reinforce that will depend on the advance party's report on the work that the Red Cross and other agencies can do.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Kurds were betrayed after the first world war, why should they trust the British Government now? The Secretary of State speaks eloquently about humanitarian needs, and the Opposition agree with him, but the overall issue must be addressed. The Kurdish people have a right to a homeland. There should be ongoing negotiations with the Turks, Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis and perhaps the Soviets. Clearly the issue will not go away. In some respects" aid is a red herring. We must get down to a political solution to the problem, just as we must get down to a political solution to the problem in Northern Ireland. If we understand that, we can have some respectability. The Government do not have such respectability. It is only because of pressure from below that they have been forced to react. That is the reality of this issue.
Mr. King: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in that typically idiotic contribution. Perhaps he believes that the people should stay on the mountain and die because they do not believe that the camps are provided in areas where they may have a chance of survival. That is strange advice.
Mr. James Hill: Will my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister accept the heartiest congratulations from my constituency on the speedy work that is being done? As they must be aware, there will be much whingeing and carping over the next few months. They must be steadfast in their resolve.
582
On the logistical side of the operation, will there be a role for the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy? Will there need to be safe supply routes in the future from, say, Aqaba to the camps?
Mr. King: I am not unused to people seeing difficulties and dangers and whingeing, as my hon. Friend described, about actions that we took when those people thought that they were right. We are taking action now because we believe that our actions are right, and the overwhelming majority of people who have any sensitivity agree with us.
Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that this matter is not directly the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but is he aware of any proposals to locate officials from the Foreign Office and the Home Office in the safe havens to process applications for political asylum in this country by Kurds who feel that their lives are threatened by Iraq?
Mr. King: I am not aware of any such proposals at the moment, but we shall obviously be working closely with the military commanders out there and with the representatives of the Overseas Development Administration on relief. If any further questions on that arise, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address them to another quarter.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that once again the Royal Air Force has demonstrated the wisdom of having crews that are constantly in current operational flying capability, and that the helicopter crews gain much of that experience from search and rescue work in the United Kingdom? Will he accept from me that his choice of the Marine commandos is welcome in Tayside and that 45 Commando, which has its home in Angus, is very popular? As a member of the mess for many years, I recognise the skill — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Well done, but come on.
Mr. Walker: I recognise that the Marines have a special capability and quality, especially when operating in difficult mountainous terrain and in winter conditions, which makes them the right people to send in the present circumstances.
Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's close connection with a number of units. I wonder whether we can find a unit with which he is not connected, but that might be — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What evidence is there that Iran, China or Russia, which knows how difficult it was to take its army out of Afghanistan having put it in there, will agree that this operation should become a United Nations operation? If we want to help the Kurds quickly, do we not at least have a duty to explore the proposals that have been put forward by Saddam Hussein, however unpalatable that may be? Since that charlatan Peter the Hermit preached the first crusade, has any western Christian military operation in the near east ever had any success in the medium or long term? Finally, when the Secretary of State turned to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and said, "Very severely indeed" if there are difficulties, he did not, did he, mean nuclear weapons?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's contributions to these serious issues become more and more erratic and more and more frivolous and do less justice to the grave situation that we face. I wish that he would come down from the high cloud on which he sits and address the reality of the position. What contribution his words have made to helping to save the millions of Kurds whose lives are now at risk, I totally fail to see.

Business of the House
4.18 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week, which will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 APRIL—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill.
Money resolution and Ways and Means resolution relating to the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Ports Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order.
WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
Motion on the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order.
THURSDAY 25 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 26 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Second Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill.
The House will also wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 24 April at 10.30 am to consider European Community Document No. 8745/90 relating to sweeteners for use in foodstuffs.
[Wednesday 24 April European Standing Committee A Relevant European Community Document 8745/90 Sweeteners in foodstuffs Relevant report of European Legislation Committee HC 29-ii (1990–91).]
Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not disappointing that the Leader of the House has not yet found time for a debate on criminal justice in Britain? Given the important and, in some cases, shocking events of the past few months, may I remind him again that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity of such a debate.
We have been told that the Cabinet apparently reached a decision today about the Government's alternative to the poll tax. Is it not curious that no statement has been made in the House? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that any announcement made next week about the future of the poll tax will be made first in the Chamber of the House of Commons rather than at some press conference? Will he also assure us, if it is possible—which I doubt—that all the various options will not be leaked by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the meantime?
Is it not shameful that, while the Government have dithered for months trying to paper over the cracks in the Cabinet and the Conservative party on the poll tax, unemployment has risen so disastrously and dramatically above the 2 million mark? Should not the Secretary of State for Employment have had the courage—the guts — to come to the House and make a statement today about

585
the biggest rise in unemployment since records began? Should he not have told us what the Government intend to do about it?
Is it not now clear beyond peradventure that it was a disastrous error for the Government to cut investment in training, as they did in the Budget? May we at last debate their public expenditure proposals so that we can hold Ministers to account for their calamitous mismanagement of the economy, which has resulted in today's disastrous unemployment figures?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have done a U-turn and have abandoned their proposals to implement the remaining parts of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Is it not curious that the Government—who have said for some time that they will implement the remaining provisions of an Act which was put on the statute book after some excellent work by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and others, and which brought so much hope to so many people with disabilities and to their families and carers—now apparently intend not to proceed? Sir Brian Rix, the chairman of Mencap, has described their decision as disastrous for disabled people. Is this really the Government's intention? May we have a statement about it as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, during this Parliament we have had many opportunities to discuss various aspects of criminal justice and to extend the discussion widely to all the aspects of crime to which he referred. I shall bear in mind what he said about the need for a debate, but, as the business statement shows, we have a very busy programme next week: obviously there will be no opportunity then. He will know that I try to respond to his requests—although it is not always possible to do so immediately —and to find time for the debates for which he asks.
I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's implication that we should have said something about the community charge this afternoon. He will know that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) took exactly the opposite line in a letter to The Times yesterday, suggesting that it would be strange indeed for us to make an announcement this afternoon; he was very critical of the idea. We are completing the consideration following this morning's discussions about the Government's proposals, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, we shall publish the documents early next week.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a statement when we have completed the final consideration. Let me make it clear what I mean by "final consideration". We shall publish the consultative documents, which must be printed and put together in the light of today's discussions. I should have thought that that was in no sense a matter for criticism. His hon. Friend would have thought it odd if the documents had been published this afternoon.
I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's charge that we have been dithering for months. Our highly effective review has been conducted at a greater speed than most reviews and certainly at a much greater speed than any conducted by the Labour party. When the documents are
586
published, the hon. Gentleman will see that an immense amount of effective work has been done in coming to conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman requested a debate on unemployment. The Government have taken many measures over a number of years—not least this year—to deal with unemployment. I assure him that we shall not follow the Labour party in pursuing the policies that it announced earlier this week—a national minimum wage, a jobs tax on companies, acceptance of the entire social action programme immediately if Labour ever took office and a strikers' charter. I assure him that all four policies would add greatly to unemployment, and we shall not follow them. It comes ill from him to comment on unemployment when the Labour party confirmed its intention—if it got the chance —to take action on those issues, which would increase unemployment. He knows that employment levels in this country are well above what they were even four or five years ago, and unemployment is still below the European average.
It will be possible to debate some of these issues during economic debates, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill and during the debate on public expenditure for which the hon. Gentleman asked and which I have promised. It is important to have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill first, and I hope that it will be possible to debate public expenditure soon after that.
I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about the remaining provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I am reluctant to curtail business questions, but there is great pressure on business today and I must put a 10-minute limit on speeches. I ask hon. Members to ask single questions about next week's business, not about general matters.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on charities? I was saddened by the fact that during yesterday's debate the Labour party made clear its dislike of charities. Surely the public want the role of charities to be strengthened and improved.
Mr. MacGregor: I pay tribute to the excellent charity work that my hon. Friend does. I cannot promise a debate in the near future, although I hope that there will be many opportunities for him to raise the issues that he wishes to raise during, for example, debates on some of the measures that we shall consider.
Sir David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic treaty parties are meeting next week in Madrid starting on Monday? Last October the House was told that the Government were against mining in the Antarctic. There are now rumours that the Government have changed their mind. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no change will be announced at the meeting in Madrid until it has first been announced to the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. He knows that we have played a leading role in these issues, and there is to be an Adjournment debate on the Antarctic next week.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ensure that the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement in the House about the alarming position whereby vital security documents are being leaked from the Garda in the south of Ireland? At least one man among those mentioned has been murdered by the IRA as a result. There is now another report that a second document has been leaked and another man in the community is under threat. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that, when that happened on the other side of the political divide, the Royal Ulster Constabulary ensured that all the people whose names were on documents were visited and warned? Will he ensure that the RUC does that on the Protestant side of the community, in view of the grievous and serious spate of murders taking place in our Province?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not familiar with the report to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I will, of course, discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as soon as I have the opportunity to do so.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement urgently to explain why the procedures set down by his own Department have not been followed in relation to the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on Culloden school, which was made public on the same day as it was sent to the local education authority and to the governing body, and was leaked to The Mail on Sunday several days earlier? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ask the Secretary of State to explain how the problem of the school will be helped by allowing it to be used as a political football in this outrageous manner?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to comment on the hon. Lady's views of the matter. I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 685?
[That this House supports the invitation issued by the Prime Minister to the honourable Member for Dagenham during the debate on Tuesday 27th March, Official Report, column 975 to place in the Library a copy of the Labour Party document entitled Fair Rates; recognises that only when it is accompanied by detailed financial information can the impact of these proposals on each household be calculated; and emphasises that the absence to date of any such supporting figures renders worthless all claims concerning its alleged advantages.]
I and many other hon. Members invite the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to produce the figures on which the Labour party's policy on the poll tax is based. I am sure that Labour Members would welcome the opportunity for a debate. If my right hon. Friend is minded to find time for a debate, will he check carefully with the Leader of the Opposition in case he is dining in very high places?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many questions to be asked—indeed, they have frequently been asked—about the Labour party's figures on the matter. I have taken note of early-day motion 685 and, so far, we have had far from satisfactory responses. It
588
is clear that there is fudge, double counting and, probably, a complete lack of understanding and knowledge. My hon. Friend is on a good point. I do not have the slightest doubt that when we look at our own consultative document on the finance provisions for local government, the contrast between the two, in terms of accuracy and clarity on the one hand and fudge and double counting on the other, will be clear.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can I press the Leader of the House about the Government's decision to dump sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which has caused such widespread anger and dismay among disabled people and their organisations? Does he recognise that the Government's decision rips the heart out of an Act which became law with total all-party and ministerial support? Indeed, does he know that sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act were redrafted specifically to meet the wishes of the Government? Ought there not at the very least to be an oral statement next week about a decision that not only brings the Government into contempt but demeans Parliament itself?
Mr. MacGregor: I try to keep abreast of every possibility for answering questions on business statements. However, I am not aware of this matter, and I have already said that I will draw the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity next week for the House to express its views on the future of London zoo? Many of us would deeply resent any more taxpayers' money going into the zoo and are amazed that those who run the zoo should seek to threaten us by saying that if more taxpayers' money is not available animals will be killed.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has already made his point. I was going to say that he must find another opportunity to make his point because I can see no chance of Government time being given to the matter next week. My hon. Friend will know that in 1988 the Government announced a further £10 million for London zoo—£5 million of which, I understand, has still not been spent. We have made it clear that, in view of that contribution —and there may be contributions by other means to animal research —the Government do not intend to provide any more money.
Mr. Ray Powell: Unlike the Leader of the House, I shall not quote what the Labour party's manifesto says about unemployment because we are dealing specifically with the business for next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider providing time to debate early-day motion 576?
[That this House calls for a full parliamentary inquiry into the financial and administrative actions of the Mid-Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council and other training and enterprise councils in Britain; notes with concern that the officers of the Mid-Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council are making wide ranging decisions without consultation with members of the Board; that these Board members are only called upon to endorse the actions of their paid officers; further notes that the decisions made by these officers are not only causing disruption to trainees on courses but are taking away training managers' future involvement in training and are causing great financial

589
hardship for training companies, particularly in respect of long-term leasing arrangements, capital investment &c. that these companies have had to make in order to give proper training facilities; and, in view of this, calls for adequate financial reimbursement to be made to cover these costs.]
We face escalating unemployment. More than 2 million people are out of work, yet 7,000 devoted trainers operating within the training and enterprise schemes that we have had for the past 10 years have lost their jobs. In my constituency, CATO —community activities and training in Ogmore—of which I have been chairman for 10 years, has had 40 devoted trainers dismissed and 400 trainees displaced. This House must be given an opportunity to discuss the matter. The Leader of the House need not tell us that we should look to our manifesto. He should consider the escalating unemploy-ment and the deprivation that families suffer as a result of it.
Mr. MacGregor: When general issues of employment or unemployment are raised, it is highly irrelevant to draw attention to the proposals in the Labour party's document, which would be extremely damaging to employment prospects. Indeed, what the Oppostion propose would destroy or seriously affect a large number of jobs.
With regard to the early-day motion that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he will know that the training and enterprise councils operate under a contract with the Department of Employment. Under that contract, they are required to meet a number of financial and managerial obligations. Within those obligations, it is for the TECs themselves to make their financial and managerial decisions, including decisions about the selection of training providers in their areas.
I cannot comment on the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I can say that I see no opportunity for a specific debate on the early-day motion. The hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to raise the matter. Indeed, he has done so at considerable length today.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Will the Foreign Secretary make a statement about his recent visit to China? There now seems to be some doubt about the future of the new Hong Kong international airport. Surely the House should be given some information about the status of an engineering project that is even larger and more expensive than the Channel tunnel.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, although I doubt whether it would be appropriate for a statement to be made next week. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will provide the House with further information when he thinks it appropriate to do so.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House have a look at the motion in my name that is down for debate next Monday? Given that it is number three, it may not be reached. Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt a more serious and concerned attitude to the question of unemployment? Will he pay attention to what hon. Members have said today and attach more seriousness to the situation than the Prime Minister did? As the deputy Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, the
590
unemployment figures announced today are the worst on record. Unemployment damages lives. It damages families and the confidence of people ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not say now what she might say if a debate were arranged.
Mrs. Mahon: Will the Leader of the House please make time for a debate on this very serious subject? May I draw attention to the fact that the House of Lords has reported on the effects of unemployment in manufacturing industry? Next week's business programme is light, and we could easily have a debate.
Mr. MacGregor: I must say to the hon. Lady that it is certainly not a light programme next week; it is a heavy legislative programme.
Obviously this is not an appropriate moment for me to indulge in a policy debate on unemployment. I should have thought that it was clear from the measures that we have taken, our determination to get inflation down to the levels of our most successful competitors overseas, which is clearly a key consideration in terms of unemployment, and our quite accurate criticisms of the Labour party's proposals that we take this matter extremely seriously. A number of opportunities have been taken to debate general economic issues, which have a bearing on unemployment, in the past few weeks and there will be further opportunities in the coming weeks.
Mr. Michael Latham: Did my right hon. Friend say in answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the publication next week of the documents abolishing the poll tax would not be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State? I think that the House will want to discuss this matter very soon.
Mr. MacGregor: No. I said the opposite: there will be a statement.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 518 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and 171 other right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House views with concern the recent Newsnight expose of serious flaws in the evidence which led to the conviction of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have the case referred to the Court of Appeal.]
May we have a statement on this issue from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland next week, as there is growing concern in Northern Ireland that there are political measures abroad which are impeding justice being given to servants of the Crown?
Mr. MacGregor: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the content of the recent "Newsnight" programme which featured the case of the UDR Four is being considered in conjunction with the dossier on the case which was presented to the Secretary of State on 10 January of this year. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been asked to conduct further inquiries into a number of matters. This process will inevitably take some time. For my right hon. Friend to use his discretionary power to refer the case to the Court of

591
Appeal he would have to be satisfied that significant new evidence existed. I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could arrange an early debate on the Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester railway line, which is under threat of closure. It is of paramount importance to my constituency and I think that we ought to find time to debate it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) will share that view.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, there are ways of his finding opportunities to debate the matter in the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 697 on the matter of Japanese whaling, signed by 171 hon. Members of all parties in the House?
[That this House registers its abhorrence at the Japanese slaughter of a further 327 Minke whales in Antarctica for so-called research; is outraged that over 13,000 whales have been slaughtered in just five years of the International Whaling Commission's indefinite ban on commercial whaling; is gravely concerned that Iceland, Norway and Japan have threatened to leave the International Whaling Commission this year; is aware of the strength of public opinion within this country and in Europe against the slaughter of whales; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to press for a permanent and enforceable ban and to initiate complementary legislation within the European Community Common Fisheries Policy which prohibits the killing of whales for commercial, research or fisheries management purposes.]
It points out that the Japanese are continuing to slaughter whales under the guise of so-called scientific work. Great concern has been caused throughout the House by the letter sent to certain hon. Members by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which clearly seems to indicate to many of us that the British Government are about to allow a motion for the resumption of limited commercial whaling. I shall be very grateful if the Leader of the House is able to take advice now, go to the Dispatch Box and say that there is no chance whatsoever of the British Government's agreeing with the Japanese, the Icelanders or the Norwegians about the restoration of even limited commercial whaling. May we have a statement or a debate on this very important issue next week?
Mr. MacGregor: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the Government have been taking a lead in these matters. I am grateful to hear him confirming that. I assure him that we will continue to take a lead in pressing for the proper conservation of whales and in resisting any whaling research that cannot be fully justified. The interpretation which I think he has put on my right hon. Friend's letter is not right.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will next week be seeking leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill to reform Sunday trading? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shopping
592
centre of the Thorp Arch trading estate in my constituency is now threatened with closure as a consequence of the Leeds council's decision to seek injunctions to prevent trading on Sunday, when over half the traders' business is done? It is some years since the Government attempted to reform the mess of Sunday trading. Cannot the Government take urgent action to save important jobs and provide a service for consumers which is very much valued?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that there will be a ten-minute Bill next week that will deal with some aspects of the Shops Act 1950, but I have to say that it is some very specific aspects of it.
On the general question of Sunday trading, I am sure that my hon. Friend will know of the great attention that the Government have been giving to these matters over some time and the review that we are continuing to conduct in consultation with all those affected. Equally, he will know of the difficulties in reaching an agreement which can achieve a consensus in the House to enable us to reform the laws, which I agree need reform. The difficulty is to find a way of doing it with which most people can agree.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Commissioner on the splendid work he did on Barlow Clowes. He has obviously had a long, well-deserved rest since then, and I am concerned that it has taken over two years for him to look at the complaint that I have made against the Welsh Office and referred to him. I am worried that my constituent may not survive to the end of this century, and I am wondering whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to look at the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner and perhaps arrange a debate so that Members who have had experience similar to mine may have an opportunity to debate the matter.
Mr. MacGregor: My responsibilities extend only to finding time for a debate on the general work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I cannot promise a debate in the near future because there are a number of other matters for which time will have to be found next week and beyond. However, I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
With regard to the specific case, I am sure that the hon. Member will pursue it with all the vigour at his command and, if he considers it absolutely necessary, will find an opportunity to raise it in the House.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member for Billericay in her place when the business statement was made? No? I will call the hon. Lady later.
Mr. John Fraser: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 691 on Japanese fighting dogs, signed by hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House draws attention to the proposal to import a second Japanese Tosa dog for breeding purposes; notes that this species of dog grows to 17 stone and was originally bred for fighting; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to propose amendments to the law so that the import of new breeds of dog may be prohibited if it is against the public interest by virtue of the size, nature and purpose

593
of the animal and so that, where appropriate, even where dogs are imported conditions may be attached to import licences as to the custody and breeding of such animals.]
It is based on very good investigative journalism by the South London Press. Will there be a chance to debate that motion next week? If, as I expect, the Leader of the House says no, will there at least be a statement by a Home Office Minister on the consultation paper on the breeding, custody and import of Tosa dogs before this country is invaded by another load of Rottweilers mark 2, to the danger of the population? Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the concern about this matter. I cannot promise a statement next week—in fact, there will not be a statement next week, I think—
Dr. Lewis Moonie: They are as big as the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MacGregor: Bigger, actually—almost as big as the hon. Gentleman. These are rather more serious matters than that intervention would imply and I understand the concern, but I do not think that there can be a statement next week. The Government are currently considering their responses to the consultation paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There are significant difficulties in seeking to control the import or breeding of specific breeds of dog or, as in this case, cross breeds. Legislation is already in place to deal effectively with any dog which presents a danger to the public and to ban those who have such dogs from keeping a dog in future. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is keeping the position under review, and I will certainly draw to his attention the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
Mr. Speaker: I am now told that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was here for the statement. I confess that I did not see her. I call Mrs. Gorman.
Mrs. Gorman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise; I was moving around, I must admit.
Will my right hon. Friend find time next week, or as soon as possible, for the House to discuss the serious matters revealed by the case of the Orkney parents and the children removed from them, especially following the similar tragic circumstances in Rochdale and, before that, in Cleveland, since I doubt whether Opposition Members will wish to use some of their time to debate the subject, given their dedication to social workers and reluctance to criticise them?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the protection of children from harm is a matter of the highest importance, and hon. Members in all parts of the douse will agree with that. But, as she will know, the Orkney case is subject to an appeal and is therefore sub judice. Therefore, it would be improper for me to comment on it now, and that would be the difficulty about having a statement or debate next week.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the reply that the Leader of the House gave earlier on the question of Antarctica, and as a letter has been circulated to hon. Members saying that New Zealand members of Friends of the Earth are claiming that the United Kingdom's position on the issue will be a major impediment to the successful protection of Antarctica,
594
may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that his remarks gave a different impression? Will he arrange for a statement to be made to the House on Monday explaining precisely what the position of Britain will be at Monday's conference in Madrid?
Mr. MacGregor: Ministers have made clear their position on Antarctica. I have seen and received a number of letters from them in response to constituents' concerns about the issue.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Far be it from me to suggest to the Leader of the House that a possible ban on the importation of cross-breed dogs could be dealt with by the hybrid Bill procedure, but in his statement on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill yesterday morning—when he, like me, was in a semi-comatose state and when I think he was busking from a non-existent music score—the right hon. Gentleman said that he intended to introduce the Bill this Session, although I understand that he has talked subsequently about it possibly being in the next Queen's Speech.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be done by the hybrid Bill procedure and whether it will be in this Session or, in the normal way, on the single day permitted for the introduction of hybrid and private Bills at the beginning of the next Session? Will he confirm that, if the Government and the promoters have two goes to pass the Bill, my constituents and other objectors will have two goes to oppose it?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that I was not in a semi-comatose state yesterday morning. I said—and I make the position totally clear now—that we were making it a Government Bill and that we intended to get on with it as quickly as possible. I said, in response to the hon. Gentleman's letter asking whether we intended to introduce the Bill this Session, that we hoped to do that. We are now considering the Government Bill following the failure of the private Bill.
The Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that he will consult widely on the Bill, and he is now doing that with great speed. We are having to consider the drafting of the Bill. The question whether it is hybrid is not for me, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are getting on with it with great speed and that we hope, if possible, to introduce the Bill this Session. That is our intention, and there would, of course, be opportunity for all to comment on the Bill.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I underline the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on the criminal justice system in the light of the recent series of disasters? The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been many opportunities to discuss the subject, but he is mistaken about that, and Mr. Speaker will confirm that we have repeatedly been told that the cases involved are sub judice.
The Government have decided to set up a royal commission. The Leader of the House will find that there is support on both sides of the House since the issue is not particularly politically controversial between us. Will he try to find time so that we may debate what many people outside the House realise is a serious situation?
Mr. MacGregor: I did not think the hon. Gentleman had particular cases in mind, and in his opening comments

595
I thought that he was referring to the situation in general. I cannot add to what I have already said on the subject. I shall bear in mind the request.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are now rising who were not rising before. Will they ask brief questions, please?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on early-day motion 717 concerning safety at sea and the fishing boat Marigold?
[That this House notes that fishermen's lives continue to be put at risk by the provisions of the iniquitous eight day continuous tie-up and that the fishing boat Marigold sailed from Peterhead harbour on Wednesday 17th April into a forecast of deteriorating weather conditions; sympathises with these fishermen who are being forced to sea in poor weather through economic pressures and their families who have to suffer the anxiety of waiting on their return; and demands that the Government now reconsider their support for a penal policy which does not conserve a single fish but increases the risks for fishermen at sea.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as we speak, the Marigold is at sea in force 8 gale conditions, having put to sea yesterday from Peterhead, against an adverse weather forecast, due to economic pressure and the Government's eight-day tie-up regulations? May we have a debate in which, for once, the fisheries Ministers will treat the communities with some respect, in which we shall be told what we are to say to the families in their anxiety about the fishermen, and in which the Government will have an opportunity to abandon their disastrous tie-up regulations before they cause a fishing tragedy at sea?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was a European Community decision taken by the Council of Ministers. As we have debated the issues recently on more than one occasion, I cannot promise time to debate general safety at sea matters in the near future. But if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular case, with Ministers or in the House, he has ways and means of doing so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Early-day motion 711 is about British aid to the Kurds.
[That this House pays a warm tribute to the efforts of all non-governmental organisations providing relief to the Kurds, in particular the British Aid for the Kurds organisation which was formed by Lorraine Goodrich of Devon, who had previously organised parcels for the British troops during the Gulf campaign; notes that such bodies have provided a focus for the widespread, generous and humanitarian public concern for the Kurds, who are dying at the rate of a person a minute; further notes that the organisation has been overwhelmed by the response of the public, who have given tons of much needed clean blankets, ground sheets, warm clothes and tents; congratulates the National Courier Network and Track 29 for agreeing to transport these free of charge to the airport where they can be taken to be distributed to the Kurds by the Red Crescent; recognises the pressing need for medical aid and urges the Government and medical companies to give such bodies immediate and generous assistance; presses the Government
596
to make space available to British Aid for the Kurds in its warehouses and other storage facilities for material donated for the relief effort; understands that the relief operation cannot be left to private initiative alone but requires massive, immediate assistance by the state; and therefore calls upon the Government to provide or arrange free transport in Britain and to the front-line for relief material and to make a much increased contribution to the international effort to save the Kurds.]
I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Defence because a crisis exists in getting aid to the Kurds. For example, people were expecting an aeroplane in Belfast tomorrow to take 150 tonnes of medical supplies, 200 tonnes of other material and 35 medical specialists from burns units, some of whom speak Kurdish, to the area. There is a great crisis, but only Iraq Air seems to be offering assistance. May we have an early debate to discuss the problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we need co-ordination on the part of the Government to assist, and act as partners with, those who are collecting valuable materials for which the Kurds are waiting?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give the wrong impression and suggest that not a great deal is happening. He must know that the British Government and various Departments and organisations have been doing much to get supplies to the Kurds. We have been in the lead in many matters concerning aid to the Kurds and the other issues that were discussed earlier today. That is why I say that I hope the hon. Gentleman will not give the wrong impression.
As for the work of British Aid for the Kurds and the materials that it is trying to get to the area, the Overseas Development Administration has been in close touch with it and has assisted in speeding the flow of its supplies to benefit the Kurds. There is a great deal of activity and effort on all those matters now.
Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the unemployment crisis and urge him to warn the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Employment not to blame unemployment on the unemployed, the trade unions and even the weather, for if they were to do so that would be seen as grossly insulting to the 2 million men and women who are now unemployed? If the Prime Minister cannot think of anything to do to combat unemployment, may I suggest that the cuts that are now being made in training programmes and which are denying training to the long-term unemployed and other vulnerable groups in places such as Bradford and York should immediately be reversed to enable those people to receive training and obtain skills so that they may have some hope of getting a job again?
Mr. MacGregor: Within the confines of the business statement, I have dealt as much as is reasonably permissible with issues relating to Government action on the unemployed and the dangers of the Labour party's proposals in that respect. I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, when I made it clear that there have been many opportunities to discuss economic matters and that there will be further opportunities to do so in the coming weeks.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there may be a major

597
diplomatic development relating to the Kurds in the next seven days? In view of that, may we be assured that when the Minister for Overseas Development returns to this country she will make a statement so that we may have an opportunity to debate the matter further?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a reasonable request. We are anxious to find every opportunity, when appropriate, to make statements in the House on those important issues, and I shall give very sympathetic consideration to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the textile industry? Given the alarming increase in unemployment, does he realise that that industry is labouring under grave difficulties and high interest rates? The problem of the multi-fibre arrangement has not yet been resolved; it comes up for renewal in July. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, if no adequate safeguards against imports from 26 developing nations are produced at the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations, the MFA will be extended? That is vital to the retention of the British textile industry which is centred on towns such as Bradford, where it still employs 14,000 people directly. Will the Government stand up to the Common Market in the negotiations? It seems intent on abandoning textiles to the wiles of the GATT.
Mr. MacGregor: One reason why we pressed so hard to reach a conclusion on the GATT negotiations in the Uruguay round within the original timetable was that the MFA would run out at a certain point and it was necessary to find other arrangements. The hon. Gentleman well knows what we proposed to deal with that.
I do not think it would be appropriate to have a statement now. We are continuing to do everything possible to bring the GATT negotiations to a successful conclusion in due course.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We had 30 hours of parliamentary time wallowing in the Cardiff mud—
Mr. Speaker: Order —a question please.
Mr. Dalyell: —and not a sausage of Government time since the third week of January on Iraq and the Gulf. Will the usual channels—for this question concerns them—recognise that ministerial statements, however frequent, are no substitute for debate? It is only in debate that those who believe in unpopular causes, such as at least exploring Saddam Hussein's proposals and questioning the attitude of Iran and the Soviet Union, can make their point.
Did the Leader of the House approve of the abuse with which my polite question was treated by the Defence Secretary?
Mr. MacGregor: The general issue of the Gulf and all its ramifications has been dealt with in statements and in many debates and a great deal of time has been allocated to it. We have certainly fulfilled our obligation to keep the House fully informed and to allow Government policy on the matter to be thoroughly surveyed by the House. We shall continue to do that.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman described the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill as he did. It was a private Bill, and it is one of the responsibilities of this House to give enough time to private Bills. It so happens that the barrage proposals are of great significance to the economy of south Wales, so it was right to allow them that much time. I regret that it was not possible to reach a conclusion on the Bill because of opposition by some Labour Members to it. That has delayed the people of south Wales in benefiting from the barrage.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House accept that from time to time Parliament must reflect the fears and wishes of constituents about the issues that affect them? In that context, it is important to ask him again to review what he has already said about unemployment. Another 112,000 people have been added to the more than 2 million people on the pile of human misery, as today's figures show. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee a debate on unemployment next week, may we have one the week after that? If he cannot do that, let us have a debate on top directors' pay increases of 47 per cent.
Mr. MacGregor: We have had many opportunities in the House to debate economic matters, which include unemployment and employment issues, in the past few months. We shall continue to have such opportunities.I suspect that there will be a chance before long to debate economic matters for another full day. I have already given a commitment to find time before long for a debate on public expenditure. There are many opportunities to raise such matters and I do not want to avoid them. Measuring employment in this country against employment in many other Community countries and against where it stood only a few years ago shows that our actions and their effects compare extremely favourably with the policies of the Labour party, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. So I am happy to have these matters debated; we have been debating them fairly regularly and we will continue to do so.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Agriculture
[Relevant documents: European Community Document Nos. 6649/90 relating to the checks and penalties applicable under the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, 6672/90 relating to irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy and the organisation of an information system in this field, 7320/90 relating to information on rural development initiatives and agricultural markets ( MIRIAM) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on European Legislation on 16th April (HC 332-ii).]
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends, but the matters covered in it may be referred to in the course of the debate.
As I said earlier, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to participate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I therefore propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm in the hope that all hon. Members who want to speak will be called. If those who are fortunate enough to be called before then will bear that limit in mind it may be possible to relax the limit.
5.5 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr.
John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5032/91 ADDI, ADD2 and ADD3 + CORI relating to prices for agricultural products and related measures (1991/1992), 4549/91 relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/90 on the management and control of export refunds; and supports the Government's intention to seek a price settlement that respects budgetary discipline and is consistent with the agricultural guideline, and to negotiate for further changes to the Common Agricultural Policy that make it more market-orientated, reduce its costs, lead to great integration between agricultural and environmental policies and apply fairly throughout the Community.
Today we are discussing farming, which means that our debate is about the countryside, because our countryside is made by farmers, it is maintained by farmers and its future depends on farmers. So when we talk about the future of agriculture we are talking about the future of our countryside, which matters to the whole population, not just to the few who live in our rural areas.
This fundamental point is often forgotten when we debate agriculture in the House. It is easy to concentrate on the inequities of the common agricultural policy or on the changes needed to the silkworm regime, but we must not forget the role that farming plays in the life of this country. Farmers not only provide our food—they are at the heart of our rural communities and are the guardians of the landscape which is such an important part of our national heritage.
Even though most British people live in towns and suburbs, they still care deeply about our countryside—a fact that the Conservative party instinctively understands. Our roots come from the countryside, so we want to ensure that the rural part of our nation continues to give the urban and suburban parts of it the sort of green lung that is so necessary for their health.
There is no doubt that farmers face a period of great uncertainty. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), when questioning me in the Select Committee the other day, gave me the chance to remind the
600
Committee, as I now remind the House, that the basic change that has taken place has not been our joining the European Community or any particular system or change in system—it has been the move from a world in which the West was afraid of shortages of food to a world in which those who can afford it can buy as much food as they need. The change from shortage to surplus has fundamentally altered the picture for agriculture.
Throughout the Community farm incomes are under pressure at a time when the Community has never spent more on agriculture. Therein lies the great challenge: we are spending more on agriculture than ever before, yet our farmers are finding times tougher than ever before. Continuing high levels of production, lower levels of consumption, including exports and falling world prices, are the background to spending on the common agricultural policy which is likely to be about 30 per cent. more in 1991 than in 1990.
The fact that expenditure on agricultural support can reach record levels at a time when farm incomes are under severe pressure everywhere is eloquent testimony to the bankruptcy of the Community's current policies, which clearly must change —
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not just current—always.
Mr. Gummer: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The policies were designed to deal with problems of shortage, which they did extremely well, but those are the least successful sort of policies for dealing with surpluses. They are the victims of their own success.
Mr. Ralph Howell: Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that we spent 1 per cent. of gross domestic product on agriculture in 1960, 0·5 per cent. when we joined the European Community in 1973–74 and 0·25 per cent. now? How does that square with the claim that we are spending more than ever on agriculture?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must recognise that spending on food falls proportionately in a richer society, and that the number of people involved in farming has fallen sharply in Britain and in the rest of the Community. The proportion of GDP spent on agriculture is not a proper comparison. If my hon. Friend looks back to the 19th century, he will find that the proportion of GDP spent on agriculture was very much higher because food loomed much larger in the budget of a rural society than it does today. That is not a proper measurement.
The message that I put forward is not new. Successive Ministers of Agriculture have said the same thing. The United Kingdom has taken the lead in the Community in pressing for reform of the CAP. We have had some notable successes, but a great deal more needs to be done. This afternoon I want to spell out, in a positive manner, what needs to be done. The documents before us bear strongly on that.
The answer to the question as to what changes are needed is very clear. First, we need to analyse the Community's current policy properly and, curiously enough, there seems to be a general agreement on that analysis. Most people would agree that prices under the CAP are too high. It follows that prices need to be reduced, so sustained reductions in the overall level of

601
support must remain central to any reform of the CAP. It cannot be sensible to allow the system in Europe continually to provide prices way beyond what is realistic.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gummer: Despite the worry of getting such support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), let me put my point clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would agree with me that world prices are no indication of the prices that could be charged, for they are merely dumped prices. We have to look for realistic prices which provide a reasonable return to those who produce food reasonably efficiently. Obviously, we cannot expect our farmers to produce food as cheaply as those who do not have pollution restrictions, consumer protection demands, planning arrangements and environmental restrictions that increase their costs. We cannot expect them to produce food at the same price as those who have none of those restrictions. Therefore, we have to have realistic prices. However, it would be ridiculous to say that the prices we have at the moment are realistic, so a continuing downward pressure on prices is a necessary part of any sensible policy for reform. That is accepted by the National Farmers Union as well as by the Government.
Secondly that reduction in support must be at a pace which permits the industry to adapt and be on a fair and equal basis across the Community. Those two considerations are essential. The pace must be one which can be accepted by the industry and the coverage must be across the entire Community. We must have no more attempts to reform the common agricultural policy by dealing with northern countries and ignoring southern countries. We must insist that the whole Community be brought under the same scrutiny. In the same way, cuts in support in the Community must be matched by reductions applied by our competitotors outside the Community which is why a GATT agreement to reduce levels of support and protection worldwide remains so necessary.
We have to remind the press in the United Kingdom yet again that we in the EC are not the only people who support agriculture. The United States of America has an enormous bill for agricultural support every year. Smaller countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Finland are among the largest supporters, proportionately, of their agriculture. Japan spends much more on agricultural support than the countries that are normally pilloried. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce all that support across the world. Otherwise, in seeking a more sensible system, the Community will simply remove its markets elsewhere. So prices must be reduced at a speed which the farmer can accept, in circumstances in which that reaches the entire Community and when there are matching cuts in the rest of the world.
Mr. Michael Lord: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether he is talking about prices to the farmer at the farm gate or prices in the supermarkets? He will be aware that there is a great difference between the two and that that is a matter of some concern to our farmers. Will he make that distinction?
Mr. Gummer: I am talking about agricultural prices in terms of the European Community, so we are discussing prices at the farm gate. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to the fact that as a proportion of a
602
family's spending the price of food has not risen anything like so fast as other parts of the retail prices index, and farmers have played an important part in ensuring that prices in the shops are lower than they would otherwise have been, but that does not mean that the fundamental amount of support does not now give rise to considerable worries.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Cutting prices will, of course, benefit the consumer and by reducing the cost of the CAP will benefit the taxpayer. Price cuts also provide the most economically efficient way of dealing with surpluses. In time, they would not only reduce production, but stimulate consumption. I never understand those in the European Community who tell me that we should have co-responsibility levies which would do nothing more than tax the farmer without reducing the end price so that there would be no extension of the market. Those of us who want to sell more products want to get the advantage of price cuts rather than the disadvantage of co-responsibility levies.
Of course, in today's circumstances there is no possibility of making price cuts which would have that immediate effect upon the reduction of production which would be necessary. It would be quite impossible to do that and it would be quite wrong in any circumstances. Therefore, we need measures which act directly on the level of production, but they must complement and not substitute for action on prices. There are those who try to suggest that by managing the market efficiently one can get out of the problems of having to reduce prices, but that means keeping the price up to the disbenefit of the consumer and the taxpayer without allowing the farmer to come closer to the market. Managing the market in the way which is sometimes suggested would destroy the impact of consumer preference upon the farmer and the producer. It is important for our farmers, who have the advantage of being so efficient, to be closer to the market.
We must act directly on the level of production, although that direct action must complement and help the price action rather than compete against it.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a well-known agriculturist from the centre of Wales. If he does not know what I mean, it shows that he has not been present at any agriculture debates that I can remember for a long time. When I went, to his constituency and informed his constituents of this, they were most surprised as he had not mentioned it.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I point out to him that any further reductions in the price guaranteed by the European Community to the African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar producing countries for raw cane sugar would have a disastrous effect on those developing economies? That was put to me on Monday by representatives of Caribbean countries. I urge the Minister to look sympathetically at those developing countries.
Mr. Gummer: I have considerable sympathy for them and the hon. Gentleman should acquit me of any opposition to their cause. I have always stood strongly for them. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the only Ministry in the Community which insists that any submission to Ministers affecting developing countries should carry a compliance cost for developing countries. That is an internal rule of my Ministry and I do not think that it is paralleled anywhere in Europe. I should like to see the Commission take the same view.
The price of sugar in the Community is too high. It is proposed that the price should be reduced but it would be odd to reduce the price to our own producers and to say to producers elsewhere with whom we have an arrangement that is favourable to them—they get the same price as Community producers—that their prices will not be reduced at the same time. Many producers outside the agreement work on a greatly depressed sugar price, partly because of overproduction in the Community and Community prices. Although the hon. Gentleman's argument is superficially attractive, it must be taken in the context of the need for a very much wider change in the world's sugar system. I cannot wait for that to be corrected before doing something about the wildly unrealistic price of sugar in Europe. Quotas are the first area to be tackled in direct action on production.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I hate to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but whatever visit he paid to Mid Wales passed unnoticed—at any rate, less noticed than the visit by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has discussed these issues with farmers on a number of occasions. We are grateful for that but he was unable to satisfy them. What is the Minister's message to people in a constituency such as mine with a high percentage of people employed in agriculture? Is not his only message that his attitude towards farm prices means that there will be burgeoning unemployment in agriculture in Mid Wales? His message is that he intends to do nothing about that.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be kind enough to listen to my speech before showing his ignorance of our policy, which he has never been present to listen to or argue about. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman should tell his constituents that his interest in agriculture is so great that he has not asked questions or been present for agriculture debates. He has been present on far fewer occasions than his hon. Friends.
Mr. Geraint Howells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I took part in the last agriculture debate about six weeks ago in which my hon. and learned Friend intervened. The Minister should check Hansard because he is misleading the House.
Mr. Gummer: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman and I am happy to withdraw my allegation for that occasion. The attendance in agriculture debates by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) must be few, otherwise he would know what I am offering farmers.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chooses to attack me for allegedly failing to attend certain
604
debates. I ask him to withdraw that remark unless he is able to tell the House which debates he alleges I have not attended.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I am sure that the Minister will be responsible for his own comments.
Mr. Gummer: I have no doubt that the information that I could give to the House and will give to the hon. Gentleman would make my point quite clearly. If he listens to my speech he will have to withdraw his allegation about what I am offering farmers. To interrupt the beginning of a speech in such a way shows that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to hear the rest of it. That is because he knows that the Government's policies are clearly so much better than those that he propounds and that he cannot stand against them.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sorry to take this matter further, but I would like to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that my constituency depends heavily on agriculture. I am interested not in the right hon. Gentleman's fourth-form musket-style debat-ing, but in the agricultural community that I represent. His allegation is quite wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) made clear. I ask the Minister to withdraw his remarks unreservedly and not merely assert that somewhere he might be able to find some evidence to back a quite disgraceful personal allegation.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to get out of what he knows to be true, and he does so because he made an unsuitable intervention and was not prepared to hear what I had to say about our policies on agriculture.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister remind the silly Liberals who claim to be friends —
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are at the beginning of the debate and it is high time that we returned to the subject before the House.
Mr. Gummer: We must deal with the matter not only by price cuts but by restricting overproduction. The first area in which that can be done is the area of quotas. It is remarkable that the Community is proposing in the price-fixing arrangements to cut the dairy quotas by so much less than is necessary that it will store up future trouble for our farmers. That is a real problem. A quota system is primarily intended to bring supply and demand into some kind of balance. To have a quota system with all its disadvantages, problems and freezing and not to use it in the one way that it can be used is foolish.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way on that matter as I wish to make progress and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have asked me to continue.
We must also look at new ways to restrict production, and the first of those must be an extension of set-aside. The Community proposes such an extension, but in very narrow terms which are not acceptable environmentally and do not cover the whole Community. Set-aside must be shared by the whole Community and not merely by those

605
of us, such as the United Kingdom, who see it as necessary. I am not prepared to have parts of the United Kingdom set aside so that other Community countries can produce more. We need a system that is properly based on national targets for the area of land to be set aside in each member state. It must also be environmentally friendly.
We have already improved our own regulations and I hope that with the spreading of the countryside premium scheme to the whole country, after we have taken into account the pilot scheme in the eastern counties, we shall be able to improve it further. The Commission has so far not been prepared to go as far as it should down that route.
I have spoken about the issue of restricted production, but we must make fundamental changes in other areas. The intervention system needs to be considered, particularly for high-value products such as beef, which has been turned into a low-value product by freezing it for intervention. That cannot be a sensible way to proceed on beef production. The Community should look for an alternative system of support, and one option might be improved premium arrangements. We cannot continue to take into intervention large amounts of beef, the influence of which hangs over the market in the succeeding year. At the present rate, we shall have a million tonnes of beef in intervention hanging over the market unless we do something about the problem.
A similar problem is the tobacco regime, which costs us £1,000 million per year. It is no good suggesting that we should not discuss crops that we do not grow; on the contrary, we should consider them carefully. We know the economic and social importance of tobacco-growing to the regions involved. I have recently been to Greece and seen it for myself. But why should the Community spend money on producing unsmokable tobacco? That may have some health advantage, but I cannot think of any other advantage. At present, money is being spent to produce tobacco that no one can smoke, which is then burnt to allow more money to be spent on producing tobacco that no one can smoke. That is not a sensible policy and I wholly support the Community's desire to move from that position, both by a reduction in support for tobacco in general and by encouraging cultivation of kinds of tobacco that can at least meet the unfortunate demand of those in the Community who wish to smoke.
Action also needs to be taken to curb expenditure on the production of other Mediterranean products, such as wine, olive oil and cotton. The reform of the common agricultural policy must not be confined to the north of the Community.
Those changes are necessary but they are not, of themselves, enough. If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, with whom I had an unfortunate altercation earlier, had waited, he would have realised that they are only the first part of the policy that we have propounded at Question Time and in numerous debates throughout. the past year.
The second major part of our policy involves helping farmers to become protectors of the environment. The CAP will need to take much greater account of environmental considerations. We need policies that will both preserve and improve our countryside and safeguard our wildlife. Respect for the environment must become an integral part of the Community's approach to agriculture.
That is already happening in Britain but, unfortunately, the only part of the Budget that I can use for such purposes is the 20 per cent. over which I have control. The
606
expenditure of the 80 per cent. controlled by the European Community as a whole does not yet take proper account of the environment and is not fundamentally driven by environmental concerns. I look to the rest of the Community to follow the Government's lead on environmental thinking and action. That is starting to happen. The French Government have undertaken a programme very similar to ours, albeit under a new name. The Germans and others are taking similar steps and I am pleased that the environmentally sensitive areas pioneered here are now a fixed part of the common agricultural policy.
Some progress has been made: steps have been taken —the lead has been given. But progress has been very slow, and spending on the environment still accounts for only a tiny proportion of overall spending on the CAP. There is a good case for some redirection of spending from agricultural support to measures that benefit the environment. It is essential, however, that any new environmental policies recognise the diversity of environmental features in the Community. We want common rules and principles, but we want each country to be able to make its own decisions about the kind of steps that we should like to be taken. That is necessary because of the wide-ranging environmental needs of different parts of the Community.
We must ensure not only that our environmental policies assume greater prominence but that environmental considerations are taken fully into account in the development of Community support policies. We are setting the example by greening the hill livestock compensatory allowances, and next time round they will include the new green element. We obtained permission from the Community to do that and we hope that others will follow our example.
Such policies would enable us to preserve and recreate the full diversity of our countryside—wetlands and pastures, moors and woodlands. They would provide not only better protection for the environment but a more stable framework for farming in this country and in the Community as a whole.
The Community's future agriculture policy needs also to recognise the regional diversity of the Community and the vital role that agriculture plays in certain areas where farming is the only real economic activity and source of employment. It is sad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery did not wait to hear this part of my speech before intervening. It is essential to maintain farming in such areas not only to preserve rural communities but to conserve the countryside. In such areas, there is a case for special help to preserve what would otherwise be unviable farms.
That is not a new policy. In disadvantaged areas, such as our own hills and uplands, the Community is already committed to maintaining agriculture.
Mr. Alex Carlile: It needs money.
Mr. Gummer: By saying that, the hon. and learned Gentleman reminds the House that he has forgotten the considerable extra amounts given by the Government to his constituency and others, which were welcomed by farmers. That is another agricultural fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have missed.

607
In pursuit of that policy, I increased the hill livestock compensatory allowance by 14 per cent. on average this year. Total HLCA payments in the United Kingdom now amount to £142 million in a full scheme year.
Mr. Carlile: It is not enough.
Mr. Gummer: It is all right for the Liberal Democrats to say that it is not enough because they know that they will never have to foot the bill. That is the easiest argument. They argue for more and more to be spent but never bother about the bill. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery finds this boring because I am giving the House the facts rather than the fantasies that he presents to the electorate.
I have outlined the ways in which we believe that the Community's agricultural policies should be changed. Many other ways of reforming the CAP have been suggested, but most of them would treat the symptoms rather than the cause. I have mentioned those who want to extend compulsory restrictions on production. The key element of that idea is that such restrictions would reduce surpluses without reducing prices; indeed, supporters of the policy usually want prices to be increased. But we cannot have a policy that gives farmers the right to charge ever higher prices while placing greater restrictions on the amounts that they can produce. That would not be a sensible policy. It would not help farmers react to new developments and would make farming less able to adjust to the demands of the market.
Then there is a suggestion that we ought to reduce production by means of nitrogen quotas. How would we allocate those quotas? There are wide variations in usage, as nitrogen requirements can vary widely from field to field, and even within fields. Allocation on a flat-rate basis would be unfair and allocation tailored to individual circumstances impossible to administer. We would have nitrogen-running. There would be a black market in nitrogen because it is so valuable. I cannot believe that that is a sensible answer to the problem.
Then there are the proposals put forward by Mr. MacSharry for the reform of the CAP. I do not want to enter into those discussions again because the House knows my views and because I now know that the official Opposition agree with us that the MacSharry plan is not one that we can in any way accept. I am sorry that the Farmers Union of Wales does not seem to have recognised the effect that the plan would have on its own members. It is the one body that appears to want Mr. MacSharry's views to prevail. I hope that it will think more carefully about its own membership. There is no doubt that its farming members would lose out considerably. There would be a direct transfer of help from Wales to Ireland. Those are facts, not fantasy, and I hope that the union will reconsider its view.
There is an objection to Mr. MacSharry's proposals even more important than their fundamental discrimination against the United Kingdom. MacSharry would want to try to hold up the natural changes that have been a feature of farming ever since it began. One cannot bribe people with more and more money every year to stay on wholly uneconomic plots. If we tried to do that, we would never be able to meet the bill, and we should never be able
608
to provide the incomes which, with rising incomes elsewhere, those concerned—however distant—would demand.
Therefore, the MacSharry proposal is wrong in its fundamental principle. It does not face the fact that agriculture has been developing ever since it started and that people have been leaving the land, even in those countries that have done a great deal to support the smallest of farmers, such as we have not seen in this country for a century. Even in those countries such farmers have found increasingly that the living which they can make and the work which they have to do are not attractive any longer.
Mr. Michael Latham rose——
Mr. Gummer: I will not give way as I am afraid that if I do I shall be in real trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The number employed in farming in the Community has fallen by some 75 per cent. in the past 30 years. People simply do not want to spend their lives trying to farm small, uneconomic holdings. I am referring to holdings which we find not in this country but only in some of the southern European countries. For example, in the milk sector Welsh farms would be very much damaged were there to be a MacSharry plan. Welsh farmers would find their ability to produce transferred directly to their competitors on the other side of the Irish sea.
In the papers before us we have a wide range of issues to consider. I should not like the House to avoid consideration of the whole problem of the special report of the Court of Auditors on export refunds, which is document No. 2/90, nor Community documents Nos. 6649/90 and 6672/90 on fraud. I wish particularly to draw attention to the fact that the United Kingdom has fought hardest against fraud in the Community and that we see fraud as one of the major ways of discrediting the common agricultural policy. Therefore, we are most concerned to do something about it.
Mr. Christopher Gill rose—
Mr. Gummer: No, I cannot give way—I must make this point.
I am particularly worried about the way in which the press has reported these matters. Of course, Britain reports more effectively than any other country. We want to stamp out fraud but the press suggested that because we report more cases there must be more cases in the United Kingdom. We want to encourage other countries to report the cases of fraud which they have. Although a large number of cases are reported in this country, the amounts involved are tiny compared with those reported elsewhere.
If I may give the House the figures, in 1990 of all cases reported, 24 per cent. were from the United Kingdom but they accounted for only 1·.5 per cent. of the total value involved. We must remind the rest of the Community that fraud undermines the credibility of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, it has to be dealt with much more effectively than heretofore.
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Gummer: If I were to give way to my hon. Friend, others would feel much aggrieved for I have refused to give way to them.

609
I return at the end to the problems of price fixing. I want to explain to the House the curious argument going on at the moment as to whether the budget can be ameliorated or made easier by a roll-over arrangement. I see that my right hon. and hon. Friends have underlined that in their proposed amendment to the motion.
The cost of German reunification is substantial and it would be odd not to suggest that we do not expect it to arise again. It is a once-off cost. I also have to tell the House that it is already included in the budget. We cannot have it twice. Having agreed that it is in the budget, and having agreed only at the end of last year that we should not need an increase in the budget, we do not need to increase the budget. That is why the United Kingdom Government, with our Dutch friends, made it clear that it is not a satisfactory means of proceeding.
If the common agricultural policy is to be reformed, we must stop putting reform off until next year. We have to start this year. The CAP price review this year has to reflect the priorities which I put before the House at the beginning. I repeat to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that those priorities mean moving at a pace that the agricultural community can accept towards more realistic prices. They mean using mechanisms which do not counteract that for the reduction of production, including the proper use of such quotas as we have, without their extension, and the use of set-aside and of extensification. They mean turning the emphasis upon the environment so that farmers can be rewarded for the job that they do in looking after the countryside. They mean insisting that those policies which manifestly need root and branch change, like the intervention system for beef arid the tobacco regime, are so changed.
The priorities mean all those things, not next year, not the year after, not when we have got some deal from GATT, but starting the process now in the price fixing. That is why the Government have supported the vast majority of the proposals of the Commission in the price fixing. That is why we insist that we move sharply in that direction and indeed have suggested that we should move faster. It is also why we have insisted that the level playing field be established. That is why I am not prepared to have "a third, a third, a third" reduction in the agri-monetary changes.
We deserve now to get the alignment which our farmers ought now to have. That again is an earnest of the changes which ought to take place, must take place and will take place before the end of 1992 and the completion of the single market. If we do it a third, a third, a third, we shall give the Community the chance to say at the end, "We cannot solve the problems—we have no alternative to green money." That would be wrong and contrary to the agreement.
Therefore, I hope that the House, in reading and considering the documents before it, will do so with a common view that what we need is change in the common agricultural policy now—change at a pace which is acceptable, change which puts the environment much more central to the whole policy, change which respects the need for more realistic prices, change which uses mechanisms for control of production such as we have and extends that into set-aside which will benefit us all. Above all, we need change which bears on every country in the Community and not merely on the United Kingdom, and change which bears upon the Community's competitors and not just upon the Community. Such a change would
610
give confidence and a future to British agriculture. That is the change that the Government propose and which must come about in the common agricultural policy.
5.47 pm
Dr. David Clark: We are having the debate on this series of Community documents against the background of an agricultural community that is very confused, that is lacking certainty and that seeks confidence. I thought that the Minister missed a good opportunity to reassure the farming community. It was only in the last five minutes or so that he showed that, slowly and surely, the arguments of the Opposition over the past four years are beginning to find fertile ground.
I am very pleased that the Minister has made some move along those lines. If there is any certainty at all in British agriculture, it is that it is in a mess; Conservative Members will accept that. At the annual conference of the National Farmers Union in February farmers claimed that their incomes were the lowest since the war.
Mr. Roger Knapman rose—
Dr. Clark: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get past my first sentence before intervening. I may give way later.
Yesterday we had the publication of the Government's own document which confirmed that there had been a reduction in agricultural incomes. For every day that the Minister has sat at his desk in Whitehall place, 16 farmers and six farm workers have left their farms. Conservative Members know that confidence and morale in agriculture are at their lowest ebb since the second world war. In addition, the balance of payments deficit on food has now reached £6 billion. In their 12 years in office, the Government have managed to double our food trade deficit. It is not a pretty picture.
The decline in farming has taken place when there has been no world trade war nor adverse climatic conditions. Therefore, the responsibility can be placed firmly and solely on the Government's shoulders. For 12 years now they have been driving farming unrelentingly towards disaster. Farmers have every reasons to complain. In fact, I know that that is the official Government view. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is reported in the Lake District Herald of 6 April as telling the Penrith and Border Conservative Association in Wigton that that was the case. Therefore, there is no disagreement between the Opposition and the Government because we both believe that farmers have every right to complain about the Government.
The problems facing the agriculture industry are being affected not only by the Minister's individual portfolio but by the Government's general policy of maintaining high interest rates. That has probably affected the farming industry much more than any other industry, especially in view of the Government's policy in the early 1980s of encouraging farmers to borrow and over-capitalise. The Minister's speech today did not have the bravado that he showed last year and I can understand why. In the corresponding debate last year he said:
"The Government have presided over the largest reform there has been in the common agricultural policy, and very much greater reform than anybody thought was possible. There is no doubt that most other countries in the Community have now come to accept what was a United Kingdom initiative—that is, a common agricultural policy

611
increasingly designed to meet supply with demand rather than supply with surplus."—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 792.]
How hollow those claims appear today.
The Minister returned today to the theme of matching supply and demand which, as we both acknowledge, is the key to the debate. But it has not worked. Intervention stores in Europe are filling up with surplus food. For example, there are 710,000 tonnes of beef in intervention stores, 343,000 tonnes of butter, 347,000 tonnes of milk powder and so on. That is despite the fact that we have been selling thousands of tonnes of butter to the Soviet Union, with similar sales of cheese to Japan, at knock-down prices, all paid for by the poor European taxpayer.
All that has occurred before we face the inevitable changes that will be forced upon British agriculture by the GATT round and the proposed changes in the CAP that we are discussing now. There will be changes just as surely as night follows day.
The Labour party welcomes the potential changes, seeing them as an opportunity to create a more prosperous agriculture based on sound environmental principles and the supply of good-quality healthy food. I wish that the Minister had used his opportunity today to sell that line in a positive manner. The fact that the GATT negotiations have come to a head when the CAP budget reaches breaking point is, in a sense, most appropriate.
It is clear that the 1988 reforms were shallow and simply have not worked, as we predicted in the House at that time. It is interesting to read the Hansard of spring 1988 and wonder what became of the then Prime Minister's extravagant claims of achievements in the reform of the CAP. They were doomed to failure from the start, so their failure now has come as no surprise.
There is one important point on which the Labour party agrees with the Government and that is the insistence that this year the EC must not breach the CAP legal budget limit. That limit was agreed only three years ago and was announced to the House by the then Prime Minister as a legally binding document. Now, at the first puff of smoke, some EC Ministers want to breach the budget. The Government have a power of veto which I hope they will use if necessary. The Minister will have the Opposition's backing if he does so.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why the budget is being overshot is the import of beef from eastern Europe, which is swelling the intervention stores and costing the EC budget far more than was originally expected? Is it not true that that problem needs to be tackled head on because British farmers are paying, in part, for the unification of Germany?
Dr. Clark: Obviously, the import of beef from eastern Europe has caused some problems with the EC budget. However, as the Minister explained, the imports from east Germany were included in the budget. The Commissioner assured me that that was so and the Minister has agreed with it today. I concede that there may be some point in it, but It does not have the significance that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) suggests.
Mr. Gummer: I do not want to miss the one true point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). If people think that they can obtain beef from eastern Europe, it will have a depressive effect on the price. There is no doubt that the price of beef has been reduced considerably, not just by the imports but by the fact that people think that there could be such imports. That means that traders are able to push prices down. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has a point which is outwith the budgetary considerations. It is a price consideration and it has indirectly increased the amount of produce going into intervention because of the depression in prices.
Dr. Clark: I shall not follow the Minister down that route.
I want to make the main point about the budget. It is right to remind the House of the cost of agricultural subsidies in Europe. The growth rate is truly alarming. In 1989 the cost to the taxpayer was £17·4 billion. In 1990, the cost had escalated to £21·7 billion and the figure now proposed is £23·1 billion. The Minister has already referred to an increase of one third in the budget and there was a suggestion at the meeting of Finance Ministers last week that, unless a firm stand is taken now, farm subsidies will increase by 50 per cent. in the two years between 1990 and 1992. It cannot go on. We hope that the Government will stand firm on that point.
It has been argued that the budget limit should be breached because of the unification of Germany, but that point has been answered fairly and squarely by the Minister today.
Having said that, any consensus must end because facts prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that the Government have been negligent of United Kingdom farmers and that consumers and environmentalists have suffered in the process. As the Minister knows, it is not only the taxpayer who foots the bill for the CAP, but the consumer. The consumer is the major loser in the CAP. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated that the total cost of the CAP in 1989 was £59·6 billion. A total of £33·1 billion was due to higher food prices and £26·5 billion was due to taxation. Consequently, the average household of four was contributing as much as £14 a week to the cost of the CAP in 1989 and since then the cost has increased.
I shall take the argument a little further. When the Minister moved the motion today he made great play of his commitment to environmental forces. That is quite right. We have argued all along that agriculture is about more than simply producing food and retaining the rural community, important though they are. It is also about preserving our environment. I wish that the Minister would match his words with actions.
I made a calculation of Ministry expenditure on environmental issues, such as on environmentally sensitive areas, research and development and capital, farm woodland and nitrate grants. It amounted to less than 7 per cent. of the total budget and it simply does not match the Minister's commitment.
I tried to find justification for that and was taken by a MAFF press release of 27 March. I thought that we had seen Valhalla, because in bold type it is headed
"MAFF Headquarters To Green Up Its Act".

613
That claim was sustained by the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Curry), was to plant a tree—one tree to green up the Ministry.
Mr. Lord: For a start.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman says, "For a start." We are well into the 1990s; hon. Members have been arguing for more environmental measures by the Ministry of Agriculture, so we must be well past a start. The Minister will have to raise his ambitions if he expects to be taken seriously by environmentalists.
The Opposition violently disagree with the Government's policy of slashing expenditure on research and development. We have debated the Government's shortsighted policy on so-called near-market research many times. Only last week, evidence showed that the Government axe is to be wielded further. The Agricultural and Food Research Council faces a 50 per cent. cut in funds for replacement and new equipment. We learnt that the number of scientists on AFRC's payroll will fall from 2,084 in March 1990 to 1,470 in March 1992, in addition to the thousands of research scientists who have been made redundant by the Government. To destroy one seed corn is recognised as folly by farmers throughout the world and I wish that the Government would take notice of that.
Mr. Andy Stewart: As a farmer, I was beginning to become rather excited because the hon. Gentleman said that farmers are not getting enough for their products. He confused me by saying that the taxpayer is paying too much. Will he increase prices so that I get more, or will he renege on what he is saying about taxpayers and make them pay more?
Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would be aware that I was arguing that farmers have had a raw deal and that the CAP is probably the most inefficient method of delivering money to farmers. For every £3 that taxpayers pay into the CAP, only £1 goes to farmers. In theory, we could halve agriculture subsidies, and by directing them more accurately could increase some farmers' incomes. I shall develop that point later.
Another manifestation of the Government's handling of scientific research is bovine spongiform encephalopathy. I know that the Minister is upset by my comments on BSE, but I must raise the matter with him again. Last year, Dr. Harash Narang, a Government scientist working on Tyneside, felt that he could contribute to solving the problem of BSE. He is an acknowledged expert in detecting Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, having worked with a Nobel prize winner, Professor Gadjusek. Using the electron microscopy method, he had been able to detect scrapie in sheep and was confident that diagnostic techniques could be adopted for BSE. After visiting MAFF's central office at Weybridge, he was encouraged to apply for a £20,000 grant, which he did. That money was entirely for travel and subsistence; he was receiving none of it himself. After initial encouragement, his formal application was refused. Fortunately, a benevolent Tyneside business man, Mr. Ken Bell, heard about that and was so impressed that he put up the money.
The Ministry—I say this with sadness—was not to be outdone and systematically set out to scupper that research. For example, after months of delays, samples of
614
cattle brain were offered for experimental work at £150 each. After parliamentary questions, the price was reduced to £50. I rang local abattoirs, which were happy to supply the brains for £1·50. That delay was an example of trying to price Dr. Narang out of the market.
Fortunately, Dr. Narang proceeded and his diagnosis was 80 per cent. successful. I understand that his work has been stopped because of his superiors' failure to file an application with the Health and Safety Executive for him to continue his research.
Today, I received a copy of a letter showing that Dr. Narang is seeking permission to take his work to the
United States of America. He says:
"I have live plaques on agar plates which are drying. This material is very valuable to me and therefore if you … have no objections I will do the necessary process at the National Institute of Health in the USA."
Is the Minister trying to force British scientists abroad?
That work will be privately financed and will not cost the Government anything. As the Minister knows, Dr. Narang's diagnostic tests for BSE have proved 80 per cent. correct. He is at an advanced stage of working on DNA fingerprinting for BSE and has a scientific paper on that awaiting publication.
The Minister wrote to me today—I received the letter while I was on the Bench —arguing that he was not prepared to support Dr. Narang because,
"Quite simply, an effective post-mortem test for BSE already exists."
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. When we pressed him on why he was not prepared to follow the recommendations of the Tyrrell committee and carry out random sampling of slaughtered cattle to judge the extent of BSE, he said that was not possible or practical because it would take too much scientific expertise and time to pursue.
I understand that, because it takes between six and eight weeks to get a positive result. Doctor Narang achieved a result within two hours of being telephoned by MAFF to pick up the brains, process them, carry out the analysis and get the result. Such scientific expertise should be encouraged rather than frustrated.
I cannot prejudge Dr. Narang's results, but I know that as so much is at stake with BSE it would be shameful of the Minister to continue to frustrate such scientific effort.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman has given a good example of the Government's attitude to ongoing scientific research. I am sure that he is aware of their attitude to research that has taken place. They decided a little time ago to give the intellectual property rights to research that they owned —patents and copyrights —to the British Technology Group. They now propose to privatise the group without taking steps to retain the intellectual property rights—invaluable research and discoveries that have been made at public expense by researchers working, to the Minister's credit, with the encouragement of the Ministry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, at least, the Government should ensure that those property rights do not pass as family silver when BTG is privatised?
Dr. Clark: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point, which I accept. One of the greatest condemnations of the Government is that, although they were headed for almost 12 years by a scientist, they are the most anti-scientific Government that Britain has known. We shall rue the day that we drove so many scientists abroad and killed so much scientific initiative.

615
The Labour party regretted—as did the Minister—the breakdown of the GATT talks early in December. It is in Britain's interests to liberalise world trade, in the industrial as well as the agricultural sphere. Whether the European Community likes it or not, there will be changes. The Government are extremely complacent and seem to have failed to comprehend the full consequence of the failure of the GATT talks and a subsequent trade war in industrial goods. Such an industrial trade war would be disastrous for Europe and the United Kingdom. Britain exports 19 per cent. of what it produces and Germany exports 26·7 per cent. of what it produces. However, Japan exports only 9·9 per cent. and the United States a mere 7·4 per cent. The United States and Japan are much more capable of withstanding a world trade war in industrial goods than Britain or the EC.
To be even more graphic, one can see the most immediate impression on Germany, especially since 6 December when Chancellor Kohl was reinstated as head of Government. He faces the problem that most of his farmers are part-time and many earn most of their income from factories. Imagine the scenario of a West German farmer employed in a plant supplying BMWs or Mercedes and faced with the dilemma of either losing his job in that factory because of a world industrial trade war or receiving reduced subsidies for his fanning. That is why the EC must make changes and why we need to have an agreement on the GATT talks.
Most nations want to work towards eliminating agricultural subsidies. The Minister was right that not only Europe but many other countries subsidise farmers— especially the United States of America. However, the difference between the United States and Europe is that the United States has offered to reduce its agricultural production support by 70 per cent. over 10 years. The EC's response was a paltry 15 per cent. over the same time limit as was laid down by other countries.
Mr. Gummer: That is not so.
Dr. Clark: The Minister knows that it is correct. If we wish to avoid a damaging industrial trade war, further concessions must be made on the agricultural subsidy fund. Faced with that problem, the EC should use the GATT negotiations as a positive vehicle for major and fundamental reforms of the CAP. The competitive position of European agriculture could then be maintained and the difficulties of European farmers minimised.
In a sense, the European Commission has covertly recognised that by approving the publication of Commissioner MacSharry's plan. The significance of the MacSharry proposals are not in the details that they contain but in the fact that the Commission is proposing fundamental changes for the first time since 1967. I happen to agree with the Minister that the detailed proposals of Commissioner MacSharry are unacceptable, not only to United Kingdom farmers but to United Kingdom taxpayers.
The Labour party differs from the Government in that we believe that Britain should take the initiative in tabling alternative proposals. In so doing, we would shift the debate to our territory. When I pressed the Minister on that at a previous Question Time he said that he could not do so because it would be unconventional and unethical.
616
However, it has been done previously. For example, when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, trying to resolve the problems of European monetary union and a single currency, he tabled alternative proposals which changed the area of the debate. There is no principle to say that it cannot be done, so why does the Minister refuse to publish his proposals on CAP reform? Other organisations have followed the Labour party's example of publishing alternative sets of ideas—organisations as diverse as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—[Laughter.] The Minister may laugh at such organisations —
Mr. Gummer: No, at the Labour party paper.
Dr. Clark: —but the RSPB, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, English Nature, the Association of National Park Officers, the National Consumer Council and—this might hurt—even the National Farmers Union, the Scottish National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales have produced alternative proposals.
The Minister often talks about what is wrong with the MacSharry proposals but does not say how he wants the CAP to be reformed. I hope that his speech was not an attempt to spell out his position on CAP.
Mr. Richard Alexander: I have followed the debate throughout and may have missed the hon. Gentleman saying what the Labour party proposes.
Dr. Clark: I shall do so if the hon. Gentleman will give me two minutes—[Interruption.] Two minutes to get to that point.
If other organisations have found the resources to publish alternative proposals, why are not the Government prepared to do so? I am sad that the Minister appears to be unable to make up his mind. Is dithering becoming infectious?
Even the European Commissioner, who came from the ranks of the Conservative party, has a different attitude from that of the Minister. Leon Brittan was critical of the Minister's attitude toward the MacSharry proposals and said:
"It is quite inappropriate and indeed out of character for Britain simply to dismiss the whole plan out of hand. The Commission plan, however flawed it may appear to some eyes, does represent a serious attempt to tackle the central problem of too high prices that lies at the root of all the CAP difficulties."
Why are the Government so reluctant to press for proposals fundamentally to reform the CAP? The Minister knows that the CAP is nonsense. It does not help British farmers, consumers or taxpayers. The Labour party has argued repeatedly that it is an inefficient agricultural support system. I have already explained why it is so inefficient. Our farmers and consumers get a raw deal and we end up subsidising the food of consumers in other countries that are our industrial competitors.
The Labour party believes that we should grasp the opportunity to begin a process of breaking the link between production and subsidy. The market should be the means by which farmers primarily obtain their production income—[Interruption.] The Labour party has been advocating that policy for the past four years and I wish that the Government would see the wisdom and light of our proposals, which would provide better support

617
for farmers and a fairer deal for our consumers. Farmers might then become more responsive to consumers' demands. Moreover, we might not have to import quite so much food that can be produced in Britain. I remind Conservative Members that our deficit in food was £6 billion last year.
Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Dr. Clark: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain. He refuses to do so because he knows that I am right. To be exact, the figure is £6·1 billion. About half that food could be produced in Britain. Our policy would reduce our import bills for food.
The Labour party still believes, as I think does the Minister, that we need to retain farmers in the countryside. We need to retain the aesthetic quality of our landscape. It is important for our tourist industry, for economic reasons. It is important that we keep people living in our rural areas and that we reinstate and retain the quality of our natural habitats. We must persuade farmers to pursue their activities in a less intensive and more environmentally friendly way.
We believe that a system of "green premiums" paid to farmers throughout the United Kingdom to farm in an environmentally positive way would not only be a much cheaper way of supporting agriculture but would meet wider approval in this country. British people are not getting a good deal out of agricultural policies. The beauty of pursuing this policy in Europe within a GATT framework is that it could be phased in and would be accompanied by comparable reductions in subsidy support amoung our agricultural competitors throughout the world. That is the best way of achieving the level playing field—to which the Minister referred—for which our farmers so longingly call.
Given that British farmers constantly proclaim their efficiency, I cannot see them having much difficulty in competing with the rest of the world on level terms. Furthermore, our proposals are compatible with the GATT negotiations in that provisions are made there for non-production payments to farmers under what is termed the "green box". Our proposals are also compatible with the shift of EC support systems under which MacSharry appears to be moving from production to area/direct income payments. Surely the time is now ripe to pursue and reinterpret the concept of direct payments.
Once upon a time, the CAP was the only common factor in the EC and was thus the sole symbol of European unity. Now we have many other common policies—social, industrial and monetary. Thus the symbolism of the CAP is less important. We once had a CAP of six nations, centred on France. This body will soon stretch from the Arctic circle to the shores of north Africa, from Asia Minor to the Atlantic. I doubt whether a tight common agricultural policy encompassing such diverse types of agriculture can be maintained. Changes are needed.
Already, there has been repatriation of some agricultural activity to the nation states—the Minister referred to that. We should build on it. There is no reason why the Commission should not determine how much each nation state may make available to its farmers in non-production support, with the actual terminology of what constitutes direct support in broad terms being left to the nation states. The French may choose to make social
618
payments to retain their small peasant farmers—so be it —whereas our preferred option should be to make those payments in the form of our "green premiums" for sound, positive environmental management.
If the Minister would stop dithering and advocate a more positive and fundamental reform of the CAP along the lines which I outlined, he would do a lasting service to not only the British farmer but the British consumer and environmentalist
6.23 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I have considerable sympathy for the plight in which my right hon. Friend finds himself in his role as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There can be no doubt that the farming community is in serious economic difficulties. Those of us who have been attending these debates for many years have heard that statement before, but I think it is acknowledged now that in almost every branch of agriculture, with the possible exception of the dairy sector, matters are extremely difficult except for those on the best land, those who own their land or those who are in special circumstances, such as horticulturists.
Mr. Gill: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) is on record as saying that farmers have cried wolf too often?
Mr. Wiggin: Like my hon. Friend, I believe little of what comes from the Liberal party. Having fought the seat of Montgomeryshire twice, I must say that one of the predecessors of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) did not often come to agriculture debates either. Although we enjoyed that matter, we will not get into it now.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should like to hear much more about policy and much less about personalities.
Mr. Wiggin: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I find that such matters occasionally get raised on the Floor of the House.
On the one hand, my right hon. Friend the Minister is expected by farmers to help them maintain a prosperity that is not being made available to them, for reasons which he clearly set out. On the other hand, he is sent to Brussels with strict instructions from our Treasury in no way to breach the agreement that was reached in Brussels by a British proposition in 1988 that the budget for agricultural produce should not be increased. My right hon. Friend made light of those difficulties. I have considerable respect for the way in which he presented the case.
My right hon. Friend the Minister set out well the merits of and reasons for keeping farmers in our countryside. This matter is not just about the prosperity of agriculture but is about people and communities, about the environment—which we used to call "the view"—and many other factors. We all agree that we must keep agriculture, forgetting that there is almost no product of British agriculture that cannot be produced more cheaply, for geographical or other reasons, elsewhere in the world. Everyone who thinks about this matter accepts that there must be some artificial support for the agriculture of northern Europe, and perhaps for that of southern Europe as well, although I confess that I am less of an expert on that area. I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point that

619
if the CAP is reformed it must be reformed throughout the Community as an important part of the concept of a combined Economic Community.
My right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, and the Comissioner has been shaken by the fact, that the cost of subsidising surpluses in 1991 looks like being 30 per cent. more than in 1990. Those who attack the CAP do so on slim grounds. The CAP has been successful—far too successful. One may think back to the days when Europe was hungry, when agriculture was not prosperous. If one looks at the results of the CAP, one must say that it has achieved its objectives. But one may look at the cost of the surpluses and the damage that they have done to the world market. It must be within the wit of man to achieve the commendable objectives about which my right hon. Friend the Minister spoke and to deal with the problem of surpluses.
I fall out with my right hon. Friend the Minister on prices. I do not have a postbag full of letters from housewives complaining about the price of food. The housewife today gets a greater choice of food at a higher quality, and at what she sees as a reasonable price than at any time in history. The Community is ring-fenced with a tariff, and this is a clever way of transferring some money from the consumer to the producer relatively painlessly. Woe betide Governments who change those well-organised tax systems, as we recently witnessed elsewhere.
The Select Committee on Agriculture has visited the United States and Canada to discuss cereals. One question was difficult to answer. We were asked, "Why have you ruined the world market in cereals?" I said, "Tell me more," and was told, "We used to send 5 million tonnes of cereals to Europe each year. We do not complain if you choose to grow them yourselves—if you can—but we do complain if you then put 3 million tonnes on the world market at prices that are subsidised by the European taxpayer." The effect of doing so has halved the price of wheat on the prairies and upset the delicate balance between agriculture and industry. The GATT round highlighted that problem.
We must find some way of dealing with the surpluses. I have heard some extremely persuasive arguments which suggest that it would not only be as cheap but far more politically acceptable if we were to take much more seriously the proposition that we can convert some of those surpluses into other things, even at a cost. I acknowledge that if I were to say, "Let us burn them", that would be politically unacceptable, but there is an argument for so doing.
The plight of the British farmer, of the French farmer —indeed, of all farmers in northern Europe —should not come as a great surprise to anyone who has studied the progress of the price reviews of the past few years. What has happened has not been accidental; it has been completely deliberate. As the surpluses grew, it was envisaged that, by methods of price, one could drive out to the margins those producers who are unable to be economic. But what really happens? There is misery across the industry with young entrepreneurs, who may have borrowed the most, being in the greatest trouble. Meanwhile, the farmer who owns his land, who has
620
become inefficient but who has a low standard of living, can continue to survive. I find it difficult to say that that is a good way of reducing our total production.
I was intrigued by the Minister's comment that one increases demand by lowering prices. I question that view in a market where there is already 100 per cent. supply. In fact, there is more than 100 per cent. supply in relation to demand because we could not eat any more if we wanted to. This country is extraordinarily well fed and, even if prices were halved, I doubt whether consumption would rise by a fraction of a per cent.
The solution in which I have had a lot of interest over a long period is to allow each producer to produce some part of his yield at a profit. I have always argued that quotas have carried out that task extraordinarily efficiently. I know that there are arguments against quotas for cereals, which are a key product, being the raw material for the production of most meat. The National Farmers Union has produced an extremely interesting paper on nitrogen limitation, which is controllable. It is possible to prevent a black market—one cannot simply set up a nitrogen plant in the backyard. Nitrogen limitation would encourage natural farming, if that is a good thing, and I am prepared to accept that it is. We should not cast to one side any of the alternatives.
In favour of quotas, I should like to point out what has happened to some special products, such as hops. Hops had a strictly controlled quota market in which the quota was saleable and transferable. That industry managed to reduce its production by half without disruption. I know that the introduction of milk quotas caused difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) would say, "Hear, hear" to that, but it is a fact that the quotas are now working. Although the Commission is being weak in not simply turning the control to zero instead of allowing continuing overproduction, I acknowledge that it is a fine point to argue. None of my dairy farmers has complained about the quota system. That is especially true of those who sell their quota, which is now an extremely valuable asset, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Turning to sugar, I must declare an interest because I am a consultant to British Sugar. Sugar has been produced on a quota for many years and sugar beet producers will say that they would be extremely unhappy if that system were to change. I shall not speak at length about sugar because I am sure that others are better qualified to do so. However, the proposal to cut 5 per cent. off the sugar price does not bear inspection. It will not save the Commission one penny. Although the big interests—the confectioners and the brewers—would argue that a cut in the sugar price would be beneficial, I must assure my right hon. Friend the Minister that the amount that would be saved would never be reflected on the shelves in the price of confectionery or of a bag of sugar. Sugar has a competitive market in Europe. We produce only half of what we grow in this country. My right hon. Friend knows all the arguments, but, coming from where he does, I hope that he will fight that proposal more vigorously.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred in an intervention to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It is interesting that they, too, will take a massive cut in what is, effectively, foreign aid. That cut was not made up on the last occasion and the cost will have to be found. Therefore, cutting the sugar quota as proposed will actually cost money.

621
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall not take up any more time, except to say that if we allow our agriculture to decline, what is sure, historic and a fact is that industry after industry will follow. Agriculture is, and always has been, one of our nation's key industries, as a consumer, a supplier and as a provider of that greatest and most important of products, our food.
6.36 pm
Mr. Geraint Howells: Over the years, I have had the opportunity of speaking in our agriculture debates and I know that many hon. Members of all parties were disappointed when the Minister lost his temper earlier and tried to discredit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who conducts his business in the House and in his constituency excellently. Now that the Minister has cooled down a little, I hope that he will write to my hon. and learned Friend to apologise for what he said.
Today is a sad day for agriculture because we have just been told by the Minister that he is in favour of further cuts in its financial support. Whatever views we hold politically, that is sad news, Nothing could better illustrate the changing fortunes of agriculture and its present crisis than a conversation that I had recently with a prominent farmer in my constituency. He is now the vice-chairman of the Cardiganshire National Farmers Union. We were discussing the state of the industry in Wales and Its effect on the social structure of the countryside, when he said, "My grandfather came to Cardiganshire as a farmworker in 1902. My father became a tenant farmer in 1939. I myself became an owner-occupier in 1986—and now my son is planning to get out of farming."
I found that story incredibly sad, but it is a pattern that is being repeated not only in my constituency, but throughout the United Kingdom, as farm incomes fall and thousands of agricultural holdings can no longer be regarded as viable units. Farming families that have established themselves over the generations are faced with having to leave the countryside. I have been told that about 100 farmers a week in Britain left the land last year, following the worst period for agriculture since the end of the second world war. In the Welsh county of Dyfed alone, about five farmers a week are giving up their farms. A report this week confirmed that 3,000 farm jobs were lost in Wales over 10 years, with redundancy figures set to increase for the foreseeable future.
That, inevitably, affects the support industries and rural services such as local shops, schools, garages and small businesses. High interest rates—although they have fallen a little—the growing cost of production and the threat of a sharp decrease in support have all added to the pressures, creating a downward spiral in agriculture and the rural economy throughout Britain.
In Wales, where most farming is in the livestock sector, farming income fell last year by 23 per cent.; that followed a decline of 28 per cent. in 1989. In the United Kingdom as a whole, incomes are at their lowest for 40 years. That is not a very good record for the present Government. Surely it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to go to Brussels and try to persuade his friends to look after British farming much better in the next few years. We have a long-term problem, but our short-term financial difficulties are even greater.
Mr. Lord: Let us be fair to the Minister. Did not the Minister of Agriculture have far more power to influence matters for good or ill after the last war than he has now?
Mr. Howells: I do not think so. The Minister of Agriculture is the Minister of Agriculture, and is fully responsible for looking after British farming. If he cannot do the job as well as the British farming industry wants him to, let us give the Liberal party the opportunity.
Another farmer, who also chairs the NFU in Cardiganshire, made an interesting comparison between the earnings of different people in his village. According to him, the doctor, the accountant and the bank manager all earned about £1,000 a week; he and farmers like him were lucky to earn £1,000 a month. That, too, should be food for thought for the Government of the day.
Particularly galling for those involved in the industry is the fact that British farmers are suffering the effects of factors well beyond their control. They have brought their farms up to date; they have increased production when encouraged to do so; they have tolerated milk quotas; they have generally adapted to changing circumstances. The industry has been pretty well rationalised. Now, the only item that is over-produced in this country is cereals. Production of the remaining commodities is below self-sufficiency levels, allowing for a level of imports which I consider quite substantial.
Many British taxpayers and consumers believe that our farmers are over-producing and that we are responsible for the surpluses in the Community. They take heed of what the Minister is saying, but it is not true; we are not over-producing. British farmers have been penalised by the Government's attitude. Let me tell the consumers who will read the Official Report tomorrow that we produce only 93 per cent. of the beef required in this country, 94 per cent. of the lamb and sheep meat, 98 per cent. of the pig meat, 42 per cent. of the bacon and ham, 95 per cent. of the poultry, 93 per cent. of the eggs, 81 per cent. of the milk and dairy products, 56 per cent. of the sugar from beet, 89 per cent. of the potatoes, 88 per cent. of the cauliflower, 35 per cent. of the tomatoes, 41 per cent. of the apples and 24 per cent. of the pears.
People should realise that the problem is not the fault of British farmers; it is the fault of their counterparts in Europe. It is the duty of our Minister of Agriculture, and our Government, to look after British farmers. They are to be asked again to accept a reduction in prices—I do not know what the Minister will advocate; it may be 2 per cent. or 4·5 per cent., according to what I have been told, but it is up to him to tell us when he winds up the debate —in an EC budget that has failed to take into consideration the current weakness of the dollar and the inevitable costs involved in the reunification of Germany.
Our Minister of Agriculture has enthusiastically campaigned in Europe for cuts in the budget, when he knows perfectly well that the industry at home is in the worst crisis since the war. Nothing that he has done during his time in office has been calculated to restore confidence. His belief in free-market economics overrides any concern that he may have for the future of a viable agriculture industry, and for the social fabric of rural Britain.
I am a farmer myself, and I have lived in the same village since I was a child. Over the past 20 or 30 years, every one of us farmers in that village was willing to pay a high price for every parcel of land that came on the market. We were all competing. Today, 50 acres of land is

623
for sale in our village—accommodation land. Not one farmer is interested in buying it. That is our message to the Minister and the Government; the farmers are not interested. They have lost confidence, and something must be done soon.
The Government are letting down British agriculture badly and the Minister is not lifting a finger to stop the downward trend. He has got rid of guaranteed prices and has failed over the years to take the opportunities available to him to pay the maximum allowed under EC rules. The guaranteed-price system operated very well in this country.
Let me repeat what I said in our previous agriculture debate. I had the privilege of being vice-chairman of the British Wool Marketing Board for 11 years. We did our best for sheep producers in this country, but unfortunately the Minister of Agriculture decided to do away unilaterally with the guaranteed price for wool after this year. What will happen to our sheep producers in the next 12 months? The price of wool will be halved. There is no need for that. It is entirely the Government's policy; it has nothing to do with the EC. It is all a great shame.
The Minister has failed to take any steps to encourage young entrants into farming. Liberal Democrats take that issue very seriously. In a time of crisis and change, the right hon. Gentleman has allowed agriculture and food research funding to be drastically cut. No wonder that farmers and their families, and all who live in the British countryside, are totally disillusioned by this Tory Government. When the Monmouth by-election is called, the Minister and his colleagues will realise that Monmouthshire's farmers will not vote for the Tory candidate this time simply because the present Government have neglected them.
We all recognise that the common agricultural policy is in need of thorough reform. Indeed, it is about time that we stopped the practice of allowing 80 per cent. of the support to go to only 20 per cent. of the farmers. The Government, however, have yet to produce any constructive proposals that will ensure a healthy British agriculture within a sensible European framework.
Farmers in this country must now be helped through a period of dramatic transition and allowed to compete at the same level as other European farmers. If reductions in support are necessary, they must be achieved carefully and gradually. Resources should eventually be switched from over-production in Europe to direct income support. Help must be targeted towards the medium and small family farms.
One of the most important aims of any policy must be to stop the relentless drain of people away from the land. As a nation, we cannot afford that loss. We need the farmers as a producer of fairly priced, wholesome food, as a guardian of the environment and as one of the elements that could provide the impetus for rural regeneration.
For the past 10 or 15 years I and members of my party have been well aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales, just as the Secretary of State for Scotland has full responsibility for agriculture in Scotland.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Howells: I believe that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has full responsibility for agriculture in Southend.
Mr. Taylor: I am a friend of the Essex NFU. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that Gladstone would have been ashamed of him? We have heard realism from the Conservative Front Bench and from the Labour party, but the hon. Gentleman is living in a cloud if he believes that a policy of putting in more and more money will help farmers. Does not he realise that the Liberal party's policy would drive farming to ruin?
Mr. Howells: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the farming community is very much indebted to members of my party. If the hon. Member for Southend, East had had his way a few years ago, British farmland would today be rated. He introduced a 10-minute Bill, but even his colleagues voted with us, including the then Prime Minister. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is not to blame the Liberals, but to look after the farmers of Southend.
The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales should go to Brussels. We have heard the excuse from Ministers so many times that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has full responsibility for Britain within the Community. We are aware of that, but the other two Ministers are duty-bound on behalf of the farmers of those two countries to go there, even if only once a year. However, they have not been, which is a great pity.
Mr. Gummer: So that the hon. Gentleman will not be unhappy, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was with me at the negotiations in Brussels on only the previous occasion.
Mr. Howells: I am delighted at the change of heart. The Government have listened to what we have been saying for some time.
We all talk about MacSharry's plans and hon. Members of all parties condemned his present proposals during our previous debate. However, MacSharry's proposals are not dead. He will introduce new proposals in the summer and if we do not accept them there will be another set. My advice to the Minister and to everyone involved in agriculture is that we should work with MacSharry and not oppose him on every occasion. In the end, we have no alternative but to work with the Commissioner who has full responsibility for agriculture. In 1992 there will be a free market economy and we shall have to trade even more with our friends on the continent.
I wish to deal with the problem of slaughterhouses. At present Great Britain has approximately 74 export-approved slaughterhouses out of a total of over 900 plants. That is only 8 per cent. of all slaughterhouses and accounts for about 38 per cent. of throughput. That figure is clearly much lower than that for other member states. In 1987, 85 per cent. of West Germany's major slaughterhouses were export-approved. The figure was 51 per cent. in France, 58 per cent. in Belgium, 71 per cent. in Northern Ireland, 69 per cent. in the Netherlands, 100 per cent. in Luxembourg and 19 per cent. in Denmark. That covers all the largest abattoirs and the majority of total throughput. Only Italy, Greece and Spain have a smaller proportion of slaughterhouses approved than does Britain.
Unless an abattoir can be exempted as a result of derogation, it will have to be upgraded at considerable cost. Therefore, something must be done. The number of

625
abattoirs in Britain has declined at an alarming rate as a result of changes in the agriculture industry and of general economic pressures. In the mid-1950s there were 3,500; last year that number had been reduced to 778.
The Meat and Livestock Commission predicts that only 360—less than half the present number—will remain after 1992. The future of hundreds of small abattoirs remains in the balance as the 1993 deadline for upgrading draws near.
The trend towards fewer, larger meat plants with advanced technology and added-value operations has accelerated as the date for the imposition of the new EC standards advances. According to the Meat and Livestock Commission's report, only 270 of the 778 remaining abattoirs expect to be operating after 1992. A further 200 were undecided. The Minister, who believes in a free market economy, must do something about that.
Yesterday I received a press release—as I am sure many other hon. Members have—from the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The headline reads:
"Explosion of `shackery' threatens to create a tatty countryside".
It states:
"'The fragmentation of farms, erection of shacks and small buildings, and abuse of planning freedoms threatens to create an unloved and tatty countryside.'
This was the message given by Tony Burton, Senior Planner of the Council for the Protection of Rural England … to the AGM of the Farm and Buildings Centre …Mr. Burton said: "rhe 1980s saw a remarkable 15 per cent. rise in the number of small farm holdings, with over 6,000 new units under 10 hectares. The result"'—
according to him—
"'has been an explosion in the problems caused by small farm buildings in the countryside, unchecked by a powerless planning system."'
I disagree. The reason why there are 6,000 new units under 10 hectares is financial pressure on many farmers. They owe so much to the banks that they must sell parts of their assets to repay their debts. They have sold their sheds and barns and a few acres of land to ensure that they can survive. It has nothing to do with planning—it is a matter of finance.
With respect to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I wish him well in his deliberations, but he must change his attitude in Europe. He must work harder for the British farmer and, now and again, he should heed what the leaders of the National Farmers Union, other organisations and political parties in Britain say to him —please take advice from other people who love the countryside and who live for British agriculture.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that speeches between now and 9 pm should not exceed 10 minutes in duration.
6.59 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate as I represent one of the most important agricultural constituencies in north Yorkshire. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, I also represent the Church Commission, which is one of the largest landowners in Britain. We own more than 155,000 acres and 410 farms of more than 50 acres. From the perspective of my constituency and of the Church Commission, the view of British farming at present is gloomy.
626
My right hon. Friend's departmental report for 1990 says it all. Farmers were caught up in a fearful vortex of natural and man-made misfortunes which, taken together, were little short of catastrophic. There was an environment of falling real prices for output, and rising input costs and high interest rates. The only way out of the vortex for many farmers was to get out and to leave their coats behind. Farm incomes fell by 14 per cent. in 1990–22 per cent. in real terms. At the beginning of 1990, there were 189,000 farmers in the United Kingdom; by the end of the year, no fewer than 6,000 had left agriculture. Clearly the past year has been one of trauma for farming.
Nobody doubts that my right hon. Friend is deeply concerned about the gloomy scene which I have depicted, and that he is deeply committed to and engaged in the battle to safeguard the future of British farming. However, his efforts are undermined by little governmental niggles, which are not directly of his doing, but over which he may have some influence. In this year's Budget, for example, in which it was proclaimed as a virtue that rates of vehicle excise duty for cars, buses, coaches and all goods vehicles were to be left unchanged, how was it that the vehicle excise duty rate for agricultural machinery was, virtually uniquely, increased from £16 to £30? Could not that increase be dropped when we come to the appropriate stage of the Finance Bill?
Another apparent niggle is to be found in the Government's new pollution control regulations which will put severe restrictions on farmers. One farmer in my constituency has complained about one aspect—the regulations on oil storage. The new regulations will apply only to fuel stores or tanks on farms, and not to fuel stores or tanks in domestic property where probably far more oil is stored than on farms. Farmers find such discrimination, which involves potential financial detriment, discouraging in the present circumstances.
Farmers are resilient folk and are used to ups and downs. They are capable of being philosophical and of taking one year with another. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates that there is a special sense of gloom and foreboding in agriculture at present because agriculture seems to be confronted by so many intractable problems which are beyond its control.
My own Church Commission agricultural advisers have quoted to me reports that show that one farm in four is currently trading at a loss and that, in consequence, 20 per cent. of farmers will not survive five years. Such a decline in British agriculture would be catastrophic and I know that my right hon. Friend will struggle relentlessly to prevent it from occurring. It has never been truer than today to say that if the British farmer did not exist he would have to be invented. He is incomparably the best, most skilled and most reliable custodian and protector of our natural environment and heritage. Even if every scrap of food consumed in Britain were to be imported and our farmers driven off the land, our countryside could still never look better—indeed, it would look appallingly worse —than it looks today in the hands of working and productive British farmers.
In his valiant struggle to do his best for British farming, my right hon. Friend will, I hope, not think me presumptuous in sketching one or two suggested guidelines for the way ahead. First, will my right hon. Friend avoid like the plague proposals such as those that Commissioner MacSharry has advocated for protecting and compensating weaker and smaller farmers in Europe

627
with a subsidy to produce? The sooner we can get away from production subsidies Europeanwide in any form the better, but a deliberate policy of subsidising the least efficient producer to produce output that nobody wants is a higher form of lunacy.
Secondly, there is a form of subsidy that is desirable and acceptable. There may be, for example, a reward to farmers for performing what amount to public services in preservation and environmental protection. The Minister's farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm diversification grant scheme are good cases in point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider extending the first scheme beyond its present three-year limit if only because it has to march in step, to some extent, with statutory pollution control regulations, which have suffered some delay in coming before the House.
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend be eternally vigilant in the matter of competition? With fair competition, the British farmer is a world beater with an assured future, but it is not fair competition when, for example, chemicals used on cucumbers in Holland are not allowed to be used on cucumbers in Britain. There are countless similar examples that one could give. Will my right hon. Friend consider doing more to promote good marketing practice and producer co-operatives? The downside to our larger farm units in Britain, compared to those in mainland Europe, is that farmers tend to think that they are big enough to go it alone in marketing when in reality they cannot. The mini-producers in Europe know only too well that they must co-operate, which they do, so that their tortoises are, unfortunately, only too frequently beating our hares.
If output has to be restrained to keep the CAP and its budget afloat—and farmers are perfectly well aware of the necessity for that [reductions in support, to quote the Country Landowners Association,
"must be made only at a pace which the industry can cope with. Cuts in support must be matched by our GATT partners, and must be applied equally across the whole European Community."
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be positive in his thinking, and even innovatory and radical. I was a little disappointed by the cold water that he poured on the scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned—the idea of Community compulsory restrictions on the use of nitrogen throughout the EC. Using a fertiliser quota scheme that individual farmers could buy or sell would be a far more interesting and economical way to reduce total EC production while rewarding the efficient and profitable farmer than any of Mr. MacSharry's ideas for subsidising lame ducks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to keep an open mind on that interesting nitrogen scheme.
I put on record the fact that the Church Commissioners, as substantial owners of tenanted farms, welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals for reform of agricultural tenancy law. We support what is proposed, and we will submit detailed comments in the near future.
7.9 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is well known that I am Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. That Committee has examined the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the 22 or 23
628
documents in the Vote Office. The value of Select Committees is sometimes appreciated outside the House. The Chairman of the Agriculture Committee has contributed to this debate. I hope that one day his Committee will get round to considering alternatives to the common agricultural policy. A Select Committee of this House would be an admirable vehicle for that purpose.
I am making this speech in a personal capacity—not with my Chairman's hat on. Twenty years ago, this House was having debates about joining what was then called the Common Market. Agriculture, of course, was one of the central themes of the debate. I remember saying to the then Member for Lowestoft and Minister of Agriculture, "Do you really suppose that a common market from Sicily to the Shetlands will be a practical proposition?" I said to colleagues who are now on the Liberal Benches, "Do you really want to hand over British agriculture policy to Brussels?" They said yes, and voted accordingly.
Let me refer to the question of sugar. At the time to which I have just referred, I was not the Member for Newham, South, so I did not have a constituency interest. However, I was very concerned about this issue, and I am even more concerned about it now.
At a meeting of the Select Committee on European Legislation last Tuesday, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) questioned the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about sugar. The hon. Member referred in particular to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the 1·3 million tonnes of sugar that we get from Commonwealth territories. The Minister replied:
"If that means we have to rewrite the Protocol and have a whole new system, then so be it".
I do not know whether that remark has been publicised. In some ways I hope that it has been, but in others I hope that it has not. If it has, it will create a great deal of fear in Commonwealth capitals—the capitals of countries such as Mauritius, Fiji and Jamaica. In exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the Minister did not provide the ACP countries with very much reassurance.
Mr. Gummer: I should not like any fear to be based on that. The reason for the remark, as I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that significant reductions in sugar prices in the European market—that is the context in which the matter was being discussed—have a very real knock-on effect in associated countries in the developing world. I was suggesting that one could not just allow that to happen and that we should have to find a different way of helping those countries. It was entirely a supportive suggestion. I thought that it was not necessary when we were cutting by 5 per cent., but the question that I was asked in the Select Committee referred to the possibility of a continuing and significant cut. I was asked what I would suggest in those circumstances. In reply, I said that it would be necessary to look again at the protocol. That would be in the context of improving the situation of the developing countries—something to which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am committed.
Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful for the Minister's clarification. I see exactly what he means. Apart from sugar, what do those countries have to sell? Other measures that have been suggested, but not put into practice, are very doubtful indeed. I think that I have made the point. I am no longer the Member for Acton. I now

629
represent Newham, South, which imports 1 million tonnes of Commonwealth sugar, although the employment that is provided in the constituency—I suppose that this is a vested interest—is rapidly diminishing with the ad vent of technological development.
I wish to comment briefly on the general MacSharry situation. In the first part of his report, Mr. MacSharry brutally exposed what is going on. In the past 10 years, CAP costs have doubled in real terms; 35 per cent. of the agricultural population have left the land; in the United Kingdom, 18,000 farmers have left the industry in the past 10 years, and 44,000 farm workers have lost their jobs. We all know that we do not get a very good deal for our contribution, but that is just one of the consequences of the rules of the club. As somebody once said, it is not our money. Mr. MacSharry, in his report, pointed out also that the stabilisers had failed. Held up, only three or four years ago, as the great salvation for the CAP, they have now been set aside and are hardly operative. Pensioning off, too, is marginal. Things that were trumpeted a few years ago are not working.
I want to be objective. People know my general views of the Common Market. We have been in the Community for 20 years, and we all know that there is a problem. Indeed, Britain has a dilemma. When the Minister goes to Brussels, he does not have a veto. Any 23 members, in combination, can turn down any proposal. This reminds me of someone who has driven up a one-way street and cannot get back. Such a person is in a particularly bad position if he does not have a reverse gear. But even if he were minded to get out and push the car, he might come up against some of those metal plates on the road. If things cannot be changed without one third of the membership in voting blocks, it may not be possible to find any way at all. That is a constitutional problem of which this country should be aware. Indeed, this House is only just becoming aware of it.
Let me put this fundamental question: what is the difference between the objectives of the common agricultural policy, the means and mechanisms by which those objectives are realised, and the desirable characteris-tics of the CAP? I detected from what the Minister said on Tuesday, and from what the Opposition spokesman has said, the sort of characteristics that this country wants the common agricultural policy to have. There is the question of care of the countryside and of ensuring that the impact on the environment is benign. But I wonder whether those objectives are attainable. The purposes of the common agricultural policy are to be found in articles 38 and 39 of the treaty of Rome. Paragraph 1 of article I says:
"The common market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. 'Agricultural products' means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products."
Article 39(1) says:
"The objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:

(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;

(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;

(c) to stabilise markets;"—

three magic words—
630

"(d) to assure the availability of supplies:

(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices."

Of course, MacSharry pointed out that the prices would be two to three times world levels. I cannot quote the rest of the article as there is not time. Is it possible to achieve those objectives? If one has a common market, can one do the rest as well? This is a problem that must be addressed by the House of Commons and by the nation. The Minister says that we did it up until the time of our joining the common market, when there was a shortage of food in the world, and that we did it under the Williams plan and market support. I am not sure that that principle is not applicable nowadays, even in a situation of surplus. Is it possible that we could have modification to solve the problems of the common agricultural policy?
7.20 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The stabiliser policy has failed, as I told my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Floor of this House it would. I told him exactly why it would fail, because it is nothing more nor less than Christopher Soames's standard quantity policy; and one does not change the causal sequence by altering the name.
Why has not my right hon. Friend put an alternative to the MacSharry plan? It is because there is only one workable alternative, and that is quotas. My right hon. Friend does not want surpluses in store. One does not get surpluses in store with quotas unless one fixes the quota higher than consumption. That is the whole purpose. Nor does one get subsidised exports, which were tearing the general agreement on tariffs and trade apart. It is only through quotas that the support which the Community gives can go to the producers and thereby maintain the pattern of rural living which is the object of those payments, without subsidising storage, without subsidising exports, and without ruining the world economy in many countries which have a lower standard of living than ours. Sooner or later, if my right hon. Friend does not learn that, his successors will, because there is no other system capable of working.
Yesterday I flipped through Time magazine. Mr. MacSharry has been mentioned, but where does power reside in the Community? It resides with the President of the Commission, with M. Delors, who was interviewed by Time. He said:
"All the wise men agree that East European countries cannot join the Community immediately, but in the medium term their admission is possible. We in the EC can offer two kinds of assistance. We can help them democratize, and we should assume the burden of accepting more and more of their exports in agriculture, textiles and so on. That is the price we pay. At the same time, we must balance assistance to Eastern Europe with help for countries to our south … ".
That system will collapse the whole EEC common agricultural policy. That is what the man of power, M. Delors, is saying. Does anyone believe that Mr. MacSharry is a man of power? He would never be a Commissioner if southern Ireland did not have its quota of Commission jobs. That is the only reason he is there; we all know that. This divorce from reality, which I am afraid Ministers of Agriculture seem to embrace, pretends that this is not so.
Secondly, because it is inevitable that we will come to quotas, what happens before that? What happens before that is a struggle to increase output in every country so as

631
to establish the largest possible datum for that quota. It happened with fisheries; it happens with everything. Why should anybody doubt that? To imagine that the standard quantity policy—I beg its pardon, relabelled "stabilisers" —will reverse that inevitable precursor is lunacy and it might as well be termed such.
The third thing I want to leave with the House, because this may well be the last time that I shall have the opportunity of addressing it in an agriculture debate, as I am retiring at the next election, is this. If the common agricultural policy in its parts is not mutually capable of living together, if the parts are incompatible with each other, that policy will also collapse. And to imagine that, with a stabiliser policy—I beg its pardon; of course it is really standard quantities—which encourages people by economic necessity to increase their individual output— that is why it died the first time, because it does not discourage the individual from producing more—what happens? More goes into store or, at a subsidised price, on to world markets. That is not compatible with what the EEC is saying in the Uruguay round of GATT.
So, as we look into the predictable future, what do we see? We see that all our policies connected with the countryside will fail if they are contradictory one with the other. My right hon. Friend said that we cannot keep supporting agricultural incomes; that is bound to fail. The same argument, of course, goes for green subsidies. If they are to replace a fair market price allied to quotas, then one will have to increase ever more and more the green payments, if they are to achieve their objective rather than be gesture politics. So we do not escape from the dilemma of increasing payments by shifting it from one to the other. However, with quotas one contains the quantum of that expenditure; with other systems one does not.
That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to grasp this nettle. I am not speaking after the event. I was advocating quotas on the Floor of the House in 1976. If we had introduced milk quotas then, before the dramatic expansion in French and southern Irish milk production, our producers could have had quotas of over 100 per cent. Quotas are inevitable, but the agony of introducing them in times of surplus compares so unfavourably with introducing them before one is in surplus. If we do it before we are in surplus, we avoid aborted expenditure on expansion; we avoid living in a false world. That is why Europe, with its higher costs, particularly in northern Europe—higher costs because of less sun; that is why costs are higher—can only live with a quota system.
I will conclude with one observation, and it is this. As world oil energy runs out—we cannot tell which year it will run out, but run out it will —where is the energy to come from? It will not come in Britain from wind power because the coldest days in Britain are when a nice anti-cyclone is sitting over Britain with zero wind speed. It will come from growing carbohydrates here for inversion into hydrocarbon fuels, just as has been done over huge areas of Brazil. There it was done for foreign currency reasons. Here, as elsewhere, it will be done because the oil is not there for which it is presently the substitute where it is done.
Therefore, energy production will be in direct competition with food production; and heaven help the third world with tiny incomes then, because they will be growing carbohydrates for the richer parts of the world to
632
turn into fuel. That will. be the pattern of agriculture. Do not let us, therefore, turn our agricultural areas into deserts, followed by the erosion that will go with that, followed by the loss of fertility of the soil, by refusing to grasp the nettle of quotas while it is still practicable to do so.
7.30 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is a stimulating debater and whose distinctive style will be sorely missed by the House when he retires. The length of time that he has served his constituency has represented a wonderful achievement and he will be greatly missed by his constituents.
We must consider the background against which the debate is taking place, and I shall concentrate on Wales and refer to Scotland. Since 1945, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said, there has been a dramatic shift away from the land. Reasons outwith the scope of the debate have been responsible for that shift. The great efficiency of agriculture, with increasing mechanisation, has played a great part in that development. Larger farms have been created because they have been said to be more efficient.
Many people have left the land because farming is a hard life. Those who want an easy source of income do not go in for farming, which involves long hours, seven days a week. My brother-in-law is a farmer and spends most of his evenings and nights at work during the lambing season. I am sure that he would earn more in another industry. Because it is a hard way of life, over the years people have found alternative ways of making a living.
The industry also gives a low return on capital invested. Indeed, almost no other industry gives such a meagre return, so it is not surprising that agriculture has suffered that drift since 1945. We have also failed over the years to attract young new entrants from outside the industry. That has meant that many youngsters who had something to give to agriculture have failed to do so because we have failed them.
Those are all reasons why there has been such a drift away from the land. There have been periods during this century when that drift has accelerated. For example, during the great depression of the 1930s, hundreds of thousands of people left the land as incomes plummeted. Stories about that time, particularly among those who live in rural areas, abound.
The great danger is that the 1990s will herald another massive drift away from the land because we have failed to grasp the problem encompassed by the common agricultural policy. I fear, in view of the way in which the Minister put the Government's case tonight, that he will accelerate that drift even further. Yet again he failed to explain the Government's alternatives to the MacSharry proposals. He rubbished them and said that they were nonsense, but he failed to spell out the Government's proposals.
A recent study published in Wales showed that, even if the 35 per cent. cuts proposed by MacSharry during the recent GATT round came to fruition, one in four Welsh farmers would have to leave the land because of the subsequent drop in incomes. Not only is that a remarkable figure, but the drift will accelerate if, added to those cuts

633
in the GATT talks, there are cuts in price support as a result of the latest price proposals and MacSharry's reform plans are totally rejected.
We must look carefully at the background to the present situation. For example, there was a 23 per cent. reduction in incomes in Wales last year, following a reduction of 28 per cent. in 1989. How can any industry survive such a dramatic rate of reduction?
What will be the result of the Community's price proposals, for example on beef, with the abolition of the safety net intervention measure and the reduction of intervention trigger levels by 8 per cent? Nobody wants to see intervention stocks increase dramatically. There is no point in beef being taken into intervention if nothing then happens to it.
There must be special measures to reduce the current levels of intervention. But we should remember why such measures were introduced. Following the BSE scare, it was clear that there had to be a system of intervention to enable beef to be taken into store. Confidence has not returned to the beef industry, so we should retain the system, at least until confidence has returned.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said, we are not in surplus in sheepmeat, so it seems scandalous to be talking about further cuts in price support in that area. After all, we are referring to extremely vulnerable farmers—farmers in the uplands and on marginal land—on whose incomes no hon. Member would wish to live. We are driving farmers off the land because we are not supporting them. It is essential that we give them support, and of course we welcome the 1·5 ecu per head support in supplementary ewe premium.
I was astonished to hear the Minister say that we should be cutting the milk quota by more than 2 per cent. He should be arguing that cuts should take place in certain sectors of the milk industry, but that across-the-board cuts damage everybody, especially the small and medium-sized producer. The Government should be giving protection to the small and medium-sized family farm, which has been sorely hit in recent years.
I agree that green pound devaluation requires more careful scrutiny than is proposed by the Commission. The green pound disparity should be dispensed with immediately, and, in view of the Minister's comments on that, feel sure that he will be taking that message to Brussels on behalf of United Kingdom farmers.
In relation to reforming the CAP, the much-maligned MacSharry proposals should not be dismissed out of hand. It is easy for people to say that MacSharry proposes to prop up inefficient small farmers, but let us at least consider the principle of what MacSharry proposes. It cannot be right that 80 per cent. of support under the CAP should go to 20 per cent. of farms. MacSharry says that that is wrong. Instead of targeting aid on farmers who do not need it, we should be supporting those in need. If we targeted properly on small and medium-sized efficient units—units that would not be viable without such limited support—we might get somewhere. It is essential that farming in rural areas is maintained. If that can be achieved by targeted support on revised MacSharry proposals so much the better.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food virtually said that agriculture should be left to the free market. What do—more to the point, what should—the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales say about that?
634
Unfortunately, they say little, having left it to the Minister of Agriculture to make the running on the MacSharry proposals, on the GATT talks and on the price proposals.
Does the Secretary of State for Wales support Welsh agriculture and believe that Welsh farmers should be given support in the way that my hon. Friends and I have outlined? Hon. Members representing the regions of England, and Scotland and Wales say that agriculture is in a state of crisis. We demand Government action urgently.
7.38 pm
Mr. Ralph Howell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on his excellent and powerful speech. It is sad that it may be the last that we hear from him in an agriculture debate. We shall miss him.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and with the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). We have heard some powerful speeches criticising what has been happening and outlining the seriousness of the position in which agriculture finds itself.
I must declare an interest: I am a farmer, and I represent a constituency which depends more heavily on agriculture than almost any other in the country, especially on cereals and sugar production. Serious problems face both commodities, especially if the Government's policies go ahead. To cut the price of sugar by 5 per cent. just to keep it in line with the cut in the price of cereals is a very foolish move which must be resisted. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare: it is quite wrong to think it sensible to cut the price of cereals. If that price is cut, what am I and my constituents to do? Are we to go further and further into the red? We shall have to do our level best to produce an extra hundredweight or two to counteract the cuts—and that will merely aggravate the situation and achieve nothing.
A great deal of misunderstanding and mythology surrounds agriculture and it is about time we clarified the situation. I was misunderstood when I intervened on the Minister earlier, when I tried to tell him, with the help of answers that he has given me, that the cost of agricultural support had fallen from 1 per cent. of GDP in 1960 to 0·5 per cent. in 1973, when we joined the EEC, to 0·25 per cent. now. But the general public do not believe that—they think that massive subsidies are being handed out. I recognise that there is a problem with expenditure in Europe, but even that is exaggerated. It amounts to only about 1 per cent. of GDP.
The Minister answered me as though I had been talking about the price of food, but even in that event he did not have a leg to stand on. The price of food is rising much more slowly than other prices generally. That means that our producers are being more efficient than the rest of the country's industries. In 1960 we spent 25 per cent. of our net disposable income on food. Now we spend less than 12 per cent., and the figure is falling all the time. So how can anyone in his right mind declare that the price of food is too high?
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is it not also true that, of the diminishing amount of money spent on the priority item of food, much more of the profit element is going to those who process the food and to retailers and not to the main producers—the farmers?
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has just beaten me to my point. In 1979, the producers received 49 per cent. of the price of food and the processors 51 per cent. Now farmers get less than 40 per cent. and the processors more than 60 per cent. The processors and retailers—the supermarket chains and so on—are making the enormous profits and benefiting from the subsidies which are generally thought to be going to the farming community.
As Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) commended farmers for doing better than any other industry in their efforts to become self-sufficient. We were encouraged to increase our self-sufficiency in temperate foodstuffs—and we did. Self-sufficiency rose from 71 per cent. in 1979–80 to 80 per cent. in 1984–85. Measures taken since then have resulted in a fall in self-sufficiency to 74 per cent. Our balance of payments would be much better had we been allowed to follow the advice of the former Prime Minister and increase our self-sufficiency beyond 80 per cent.
Our balance of payments is an important feature of the performance of agriculture. Cereals are the most successful sector of agriculture. In 1979 our net balance in cereals was a deficit of £404 million. Cereals are now in surplus to the tune of £229 million—a change around of more than £600 million. In the same period a surplus of £46·9 million in our balance of trade in electricals and machinery has turned into a deficit of £1·677 billion. The deficit in road vehicles has worsened from £795 million to £6·932 billion. British agriculture, especially cereals, is therefore doing a great job for the economy of this country and we must stop trying to destroy it.
We are all concerned about the third world and the awful events on the Turkey-Iraq border. Britain is 120 per cent. self-sufficient in wheat; Europe is 130 per cent. self-sufficient; and America is about 220 per cent. self-sufficient. The Cairns group is even more self-sufficient in wheat. No wheat is ever wasted in the world, so if we cut cereal production just to balance the EEC budget—by quota, or by price cutting, which is impossible—more people in the world will starve. The lower we force prices of agricultural produce, the more we shall destroy farming communities not only in this country but in every corner of the earth.
7.47 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: This very afternoon I asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do to help farming and to help stop the catastrophe that is occurring on the hills of Clwyd. He replied that the Minister responsible had increased hill livestock compen-satory allowances. But a 14 per cent. increase in HLCAs cannot possibly be considered enough, given the piteous decline in prices and incomes. Incomes alone have fallen by 22 per cent., and we face crippling interest rates and high inflation.
The Prime Minister had no answer to the problem of the disposal of casualty animal carcases. What was once at least a small monetary compensation for the loss of an animal is now a complete loss. If there is no suitable area in which to bury them on a farm, farmers must pay to have them removed. I heard on Tuesday in Denbigh market that animals are already being dumped by the roadside, which could result in a grave risk to public health.
We have already heard about the problem of the doubling of vehicle duty, which was slipped through in the
636
Budget without being mentioned in the Budget speech. There are also restrictions on the use of duty-free diesel in journeys of more than 15 miles. But we are debating the EC price proposals which, in the absence of any real effort to change the system or redirect support to farmers and away from intervention and export restitution, will result in further damage to British agriculture. The 5 per cent. cut in sugar prices, which has already been mentioned, could result in job losses in our industry and harm the developing Afro-Caribbean countries drastically.
Common agricultural policy spending needs to be reduced, but some factors are not being taken into account —for example, the inclusion of the GDR in the EC and the potential reduction in costs of exporting surplus production with a strong US dollar. Spending could be reduced while helping farmers if the CAP were reformed.
Farmers in areas such as mine cannot continue in agriculture and continue to protect the visual and amenity value of the countryside if prices are cut merely to save expenditure.
The Minister rightly attacks the MacSharry proposals, which would be highly discriminatory against British farmers and which—although some would disagree—would discriminate against Welsh farmers and other less-favoured area farmers.
Welsh farms, and probably Welsh farmers, too, are smaller than average ——
Mr. Alex Carlile: My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) is not smaller than average.
Mr. Jones: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) is an average Welsh farmer.
Welsh farms are smaller than the United Kingdom average, but they are six times larger than the European average and 12 times larger than Greek or Portuguese farms. The same applies when the product is considered. For example, dairy herds in Europe average 19 cows while the average herd in the United Kingdom is 61 cows. In Wales it is 50 cows, but in Greece and Portugal it is four cows. Welsh and British farms would therefore Miss out badly. Different approaches to definition could be taken. For example, each country could set its own size definition or use labour units, but it would be far better if farming were recognised as an essential element in the maintenance and creation of environmental value. Integrated policies with agricultural and environmental objectives can encourage farming practices that lead to diverse and high-quality landscapes and will maintain ecological systems. Such practices will pay more heed to traditional husbandry methods and less to production intensity.
At present, farmers' only alternative to the economic mess that they are in is to increase production or go out of business, both of which would have a devastating effect on the local environment. A less production-oriented view of agriculture could also recognise the role of small and part-time farmers in rural areas and rural affairs.
A shift from product price support to environmental management payments is capable of simultaneously reducing agricultural output, maintaining farm incomes and populations, reducing the total cost of support to society and providing unequivocal environmental benefits such as reduced pollution, improved wildlife habits and landscapes and improved food quality.

637
The Minister said several times that he wanted an acceptable change —a green change—but what is he doing to achieve it? Hon. Members have already pointed out that he has made no proposals in place of the MacSharry plans. He can achieve something in Europe only if he is prepared to put forward proposals which will have some credibility with our European partners. In the absence of that, we will get MacSharry in one form or another and I do not think that will be good for British or Welsh farming.
7.53 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: I am delighted to contribute to the debate, coming as I do from a constituency where agriculture is absolutely vital. I start by acknowledging the achievements of British agriculture. Instead of food shortages we now have plenty of food at reasonable prices that we now take very much for granted. The agriculture industry has improved its productivity and efficiency superbly and has greatly helped with our balance of payments.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish.
Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said "Rubbish" from a sedentary position, but I know that he will speak later in the debate, so I suggest that he remains quiet during my speech.
At the same time it has maintained a countryside which we can all enjoy. If people doubt that, they should come to Suffolk and see for themselves. Farmers have also made an invaluable contribution to the fight against inflation. The rate of inflation in recent years has been held down by the price of food, and that in turn has been held down by farm gate prices. So farmers have done more than their share in the battle against inflation. What is to be their reward for responding so magnificently to the task that the nation set them? Apparently, thanks to the CAP, their reward is to suffer either the implementation of Agriculture Commissioner MacSharry's grotesquely discriminatory plans, or to be subjected to severe cuts in the price of their products which the industry in its present state simply will not be able to stand.
Any fair-minded and reasonably informed observer is forced to conclude that the CAP, far from being the instrument that will solve our agricultural problems, is the very cause of most of them. We pay lip service to the ideas of free trading within the Community and increasingly allowing market forces to operate. We all know that those are myths. The CAP is a mixture of regulations fairly or unfairly applied, price fixing by way of horse trading at various political levels, fiddles and protectionism of various kinds and a fair quantity of sheer fraud.
I am tired of pointing out unfairnesses about which little ever seems to happen. One example concerns the egg producers. Following all the problems with salmonella, tighter regulations in Britain have meant that our egg producers are now producing the best product in Europe. Sadly, many of them have gone out of business in the process. Dutch imports have come in to fill the gap. Lorries are allowed into Britain carrying eggs that are not of the same standard as ours and are taking away the business that our producers have lost and their flocks have been slaughtered. Our eggs are now better but we are not allowed to tell people so. We cannot stamp them or market them in the way in which we should be allowed as we now have the best product.
638
I do not want to put the blame for our farming problems on the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture or his team. In the circumstances, they are doing an excellent job. I know that my right hon. Friend cares every bit as much as I do for our farmers and our countryside, but his hands are tied. He is only one of 12. He has to work within the limits of the CAP and inevitably he has to horse trade. That means that, although he is our Minister of Agriculture, he cannot look after the industry as he would wish and as he should be able to do.
I was unable to be present to hear my right hon. Friend's speech at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting earlier this year, but I think that parts of it highlight his present dilemma. My right hon. Friend used the word "modulation". That is a bit of Eurojargon. He said:
"Modulation says that support should in future be concentrated on the smallest producers—smallest not on the UK size-scale but on the Community scale … 90 per cent. of farmers in Portugal have 12 acres or less … Italy has no less than 2 million farmers, each on average with a holding of around 14 acres."
When we consider our farm sizes, we are bound to ask how can a common system be devised that will satisfactorily deal with such discrepancies of size. It is simply impossible.
My right hon. Friend continued:
"It has to be a truly common policy, one which embraces and caters for the needs of farmers in all parts of the Community, from Northern Ireland to Crete. And it must be a policy for the 1,000 acre farm as well as for the 10 acre micro-farm."
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I simply do not believe that is possible.
There is much discussion about whether we need controls on production or cuts in prices, more set-aside, environmental payments, social payments and so on. In my view, none of those will deal satisfactorily and fairly with our problems. We now need a radical review of the whole system.
I appreciate that the CAP, if the House will forgive the pun, is the sacred cow of the Community. But if it is not working, and if it is damaging our farmers, our trade with the rest of the world and the very fabric of the Community, surely it is time to think again. The CAP is so flawed that the money going into it does not reach our farmers but is being lost elsewhere. Surely the answer is to devise a system which will allow individual nations to organize their own agriculture as they see fit while at the same time having mutually acceptable rules within Europe and throughout the world which allow nations to trade satisfactorily in their agricultural products.
I do not seek the immediate abandonment of the CAP. However, I ask that we recognise its massive inherent failings and that it will never work properly. The different nations, climates, farming systems and sizes of farms in Europe mean that any sort of overall framework is impossible. We must acknowledge that, for the sake of our farmers, consumers and European harmony, an alternative system is needed. Most important, we must initiate a debate on those issues.
Farmers are not greedy. They want fair and stable prices. Why should we and how can we stand by and watch this vital and efficient industry slowly being sacrificed on the altar of Europeanism?
8 pm
Mr. Robert Boscawen: The debate has been characterised by a tremendous sense of realism, especially by the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). We have also heard interesting speeches from the Opposition. This may be one of the last occasions on which I shall speak on agriculture. I have spoken in many previous debates on the subject, but no one can deny that this debate is critical for the whole industry.
We have never had a better group of farmers. They are extremely professional, work hard and are knowledgeable, and we owe it to them to do what we can to improve the industry and secure its future. Farmers are also a great source of stability and without them Britain would be a much poorer place. I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the future of the Community. It is worrying when a good farmer on his own land makes a substantial loss, and that is a matter for a debate in itself. However, farm incomes are not the only worrying feature of the present situation. There are many factors beyond farmers' control and one is the increasing amount of interference with the farmer doing the job that he knows best.
Everyone knows that in today's world farming can no longer be pursued solely for economic ends. It must be friendly to the environment, whether natural or man-made, such as buildings. In many cases control has gone too far and much of the rhetoric condemning the depredations in the countryside labels the farmer as the chief villain. We must be careful about that. On planning issues, anti-pollution schemes, water systems and access to the countryside, the farmer is often seen as the villain of the piece and, what is worse, Governments tend to land him with the cost of remedying faults. The fines that are to be imposed on farmers who transgress pollution regulations are out of all proportion to any damage that they cause. We should make it clear that we do not see them as the villains and we must try to help them to do their job as best they can.
Let us examine the part that other European Governments play in assisting farmers. We certainly assist our farmers and we try to play by the rules, but many nations do not and examples of that have been given in the debate. It is said that we cannot believe everything that farmers tell us. That is correct, but I know from personal experience that much of what they tell us is true. We expect the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do what it can to tell the Commission and our European partners that they have to play the game if they want the Community to work.
Farmers, and especially the dairy producers whom I represent, do not fully understand the reasons for proposed changes to the Milk Marketing Board. The proposals for a producer co-operative have been sent to the Minister for examination, but it is not the role of Government to decide how the industry should market its prime commodity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister understands that, but some people do not. I hope that he makes it clear that not only the board and the people who manage it, but the producers, understand the problems in marketing dairy products so that a sensible solution can be found. I remember the same debate going
640
on in the 1930s because my father was involved in it. They must find a system that is compatibile with today's realities.
Allowing producers to sell to companies other than the Milk Marketing Board if they can get a better price may undermine those parts of the industry which rely on the board to take all the milk that they produce and sell it for a reasonable price. I hope that farmers will go to meetings and try to understand the issues affecting the future of the Milk Marketing Board, which is a tremendous force for stability in the production and marketing of one of our main commodities.
I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister for not outlining his negotiating position about the future of the CAP. He cannot do so and could not be expected to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton made a remarkable spech. I doubt whether everyone would agree with everything he said, but I agreed with some of it. He said that my right hon. Friend the Minister had spoken about the possibility of improved premium schemes. Such schemes increase the price for a limited part of agriculture, and that then increases production in that area. We then encounter the problem of having to find some sort of curb on that, which may be through standard quantities. We ran into that problem with beef when the late Lord Soames was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and he had to end the system. Perhaps the problem can be avoided by a quota system. Although it is right, as my right hon. Friend said, to apply downward pressure to farm prices, it must be done at a pace with which the industry can work. At the same time, if we are to have an improved premium scheme for certain sectors of agriculture, that will work against the system unless production is curtailed, whether by quotas or by a similar arrangement.
There is great uncertainty. The message at the end of the Minister's remarks was perhaps the most encouraging part of his speech. He said that we want reform to start now; we must not put it off. The industry needs support now if it is to plan for the future and look forward to better times.
8.10 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is only right that a voice from Northern Ireland should be heard in this debate. If there has been a cut in farm incomes on this side of the water—in Scotland, England and Wales—there has been a far greater cut in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom, incomes have fallen by 14 per cent., whereas in Northern Ireland they have fallen by 27 per cent. If the people here have a cold, we in Ulster are dying of pneumonia.
In this debate, the House has recognised the reality. It has learnt that its powers have been seriously eroded. It is not right to charge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with responsibility for all our ills. Let this House know it: his powers have been greatly reduced and are entirely different from those of previous Ministers. In the old days, Agriculture Ministers had to persuade the Cabinet. Today, the Minister has to go and fight in Europe and, at the end of the day, he may be overruled.
I have some little experience of Europe, and I can say that these matters are decided more on a political basis than in the interests of the farmers, the producers, those

641
who sell the products or the consumers. It is a political business, and a very intensive political business at that. It is time that we learnt that.
Yesterday in Strasbourg a debate was held on the increased powers that Mr. Delors wants. He says that, for starters, he wants 40 per cent. more powers. Yet the Vote Office and the Library cannot produce the relevant document. The European Parliament, of which I am a member, could not supply my colleagues or me with a copy of the document that was being debated. That is Europe for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and, as the momentum gathers, the House will realise just how powerful the long arm of Europe is in regard to the affairs of this kingdom.
The Minister must face up to three problems. First, the system of agriculture controlled from Europe is not working to the advantage of our farmers and is not providing them with a level and fair playing field. There is no doubt about that. Our farmers are at a grave disadvantage. We are beginning to reap the sowing of the CAP. The Minister is right that a strategy to deal with shortages cannot be a strategy to deal with surpluses. That is why the CAP needs to be radically rethought or scrapped altogether. The proposals put to the House for the restoration of national power in the industry represent the only way of solving the problem. Proposals have been put tonight by eloquent speakers, who have shown that there is a direct contradiction and that we cannot solve the problem if we continue as we are.
The second problem is that the farmers are not getting the money that they should in terms of agricultural finance and subsidies. We have warehouses and intervention stores, and those in the big business of selling are getting most of the subsidies. Let the farmers get what they need. If farmers are to be asked to look after the countryside, somebody will have to pay them for doing it. Environmental aims will be achieved not by farmers producing anything but by their taking care of the countryside. We must face the fact that we have a duty to farmers. It would be a tragedy for our nation if the country were bereft of farmers and of people living in the countryside.
The third problem is fraud, and something must be done about it. The Minister said that, because we detect those who carry out fraud, we are blamed for having more people at the game of fraud. But the other countries are not taking the matter in hand at all. They are not going after those guilty of fraud. The Minister should start a crusade in Europe and tell his partners that they must start the work of detection. He must tell them, "This is happening. You must find out who is doing it and lay your arm of power upon them."
We all welcome the fact that the barriers between eastern and western Europe have broken down; but that means that import barriers have also broken down. Mr. Delors is encouraging that flood, but that, too, will tell against our farmers. We have heard the amazing fact that we are not overproducing—even in milk. Apparently, we do not produce enough milk to use in our own homes, yet we are subject to quotas, which have changed our outlook and have caused dissension among farmers. In my community, the hill farmers cannot go into the dairy business, but dairymen are going into the sheep business and taking away the upland farmers' livelihood. That has divided the community.
I am sure that the House was glad to hear tonight from two veteran debaters —the hon. Members for Somerton
642
and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I am sure that we shall remember their speeches and that we all regret that they will no longer be with us after the next election. Of course, some hon. Members who think that they will be back after the next election may be axed, and will not have had the opportunity to say goodbye. We shall remember those two hon. Members with pleasure, however, and have always listened with interest to what they have said. Knowing their record, we wish them a happy retirement.
8.18 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen). For far too many years he was shut away in the Whips' Office and we did not hear enough from him. We are delighted to have him back and to hear his contributions, which are always of great value.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has given us a realistic assessment of the situation. I do not understand why the Opposition spokesman should have been so scathing in his condemnation. As always, the Liberal Democrat spokesman wanted it both ways. He wanted the Minister to exercise more power, yet the Liberal Democrats would be the first to pass more power to Brussels and make our Minister impotent.
We are talking not just about the problems of falling incomes or increased farm wages. We know about all that. Overdrafts have increased by 17 per cent. and the banks are getting tougher. That is part of the equation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) put his finger on another aspect which is a greater worry to our farmers —the ever-increasing costs that are being imposed on them by new legislation, which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. It is frightening. Farmers in my constituency are worried almost as much about the impact of escalating costs of the legislation as they are about anything else.
I asked a farmer who farms about 1,100 acres on three farms—one tenanted and two owned—to give me an estimate of what will happen to him this year. He wrote telling me that he had done what I asked and had produced an estimate of what it would cost his farming enterprise this year. He said:
"In a way I wish I hadn't done it, as to comply with the `letter of the law' it will require estimated extra costs and expenditure this year of some £94,840 of which £40,000 might be reclaimed back from MAFF via pollution control grants."
I make no apology for giving some of the details because these costs are important to our farming community. In regard to the control of pollution, the farmer said:
"Large fuel storage may pose 'significant risk of pollution' being near to water course and will probably require concrete bund to retain any spill. Cost with work done by farm labour £2,500."
For one dairy, he said:
"A complete dirty water irrigation system required for 180 cow dairy complete with new silage effluent tanks, roof drainage system, etc. Estimated costs including design and building to be not less than £50,000."
For another smaller dairy, he said:
"A smaller dirty water irrigation system … Estimated cost about £20,000."
For another dairy, he said:
"A small dirty water irrigation system … Estimated cost £10,000."

643
Because field clamps of silage will no longer be legal, he will have to build a new clamp inside, which will cost £4,000. Under the Water Act 1989 he will need a licence to abstract water, at a cost of £25 each for two boreholes. He will also require at least two discharge consents at a cost of £350 each. To comply with the new regulations for the control of substances hazardous to health he will need to carry out dust suppression and control measures costing £3,000 and provide a new chemical store at a cost of £4,000. For all the farms the cost of extra record-keeping and health monitoring will be £1,500 per annum.
In regard to the Food Safety Act 1990, the farmer says:
"Extra security is now required to prevent unauthorised access to dairy plant and equipment … Total estimated cost will be about £5,000."
He will also have extra expenditure under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990 for a new building and veterinary certificates for casualty slaughter. I could go on and on, but my main point is that the total cost will be £94,840 in one year.
All those changes may be good news for the environment and many stem from decisions made within the Community. However, I am worried about whether we are on a level playing field. Are all the other countries carrying out the same inspections? Is there a national rivers authority going up and down the Seine, and inspecting rivers in Greece, Portugal and Spain? Are chaps rushing around dipping their "little dipsticks" into the water, checking it out and saying, "This is disgraceful. You, Greek farmer, will have to spend the same as your British counterpart on increased protection"?
The major worry is that we are not on a level playing field. I know that. As a Member of the European Parliament, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) knows that. I do not know how we will resolve the problem. If we are to switch support from direct subsidies on the farming and food production side, and if we are to favour the environment more, we should not put greater burdens on the farming community but should increase grants, where that can be done. That would not solve all the problems, but it would at least be of some help.
I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to help farmers with all the additional costs, many of which are being imposed because of extremely high standards, many of which are not necessary. If a farmer is not to have any slurry spills ever, he has to meet unnecessarily higher protection standards. Surely the right answer is to say to the farmer, "If you contaminate a river with slurry, you will be hammered." The polluter should have to pay for contamination, but if too high standards are imposed, the farming community cannot carry the additional costs.
8.25 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: When we talk to our farmers about the conduct of the Minister in difficult situations with Commissioner MacSharry, they always ask whether he is tough enough and whether he has taken a strong enough line. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his stance. Recently he was reported in the press as having said:
"You don't get out of difficult situations by pretending there is an easy way out."
That was not a soft option; it was a tough option. I hope that he will continue to be tough.
644
Commissioner MacSharry does not endear himself to me. His proposals on CAP reform and on things like the continuation of minimum values at auctions for the export of live animals show clearly that he does not regard equality as important. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that cuts are shared fairly among the EC member countries. Britain must not bear an unfair burden. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of that; in fact, he has already said so, and I shall not press him further on it.
Farming is facing great change. As the Member of Parliament for Meriden, I represent a number of farms in the west midlands between Birmingham and Coventry. Most of them are between 200 and 300 acres; some are bigger, and as large as 1,000 acres. They are all facing the pressure, as are farmers throughout the country, of high interest rates, which are coming down under a good Conservative Government, with more reductions to come later. Over the years their borrowings will diminish, but even so they are going through a difficult period.
Farmers in my area have been innovative in diversification, although perhaps in the green belt between Birmingham and Coventry there may be too many golf courses and too much wrong diversification. However, farmers see a need to pursue that as incomes increase and borrowings decrease.
I should declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union, although only as a very small smallholder. I appreciate the comments and briefings given to me by the NFU locally and nationally. Nationally, the view of the NFU is interesting. It felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to propose a neutral price package. What is being put forward is a severe reduction. I do not have to be persuaded by the NFU or anybody else that there is direct discrimination in the MacSharry package against highly efficient British farmers. That may be a trite remark because many hon. Members have already referred to the point, and no doubt many others will raise it as the debate continues. I wish to register clearly that the ordinary midlands farmer has got a bad deal from Commissioner MacSharry.
We obey the rules and respect the guidelines. I shall not say that that gets my goat because it would be wrong to use that expression in an agriculture debate, but it is irksome. We always seem to be the good guys. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is a real toughie and I hope that he will confirm that in his reply. However, we do obey the rules and I have seen that in other industries. Our car manufacturers and car component manufacturers obey the rules, but the French and Germans find ingenious and innovative ways around them. Let us hope that our farmers, who are up against it now, will not face such practices from our European partners and friends. I am a committed European, but I hope that our partners will not use such mechanisms as Commissioner MacSharry may allow to find ways round the guidelines, thereby obtaining an advantage over our farmers.
The reservations expressed by the NFU include the fact that the guidelines were set before the former German Democratic Republic became a full part of the Community and should now be increased to offset fully the extra cost of supporting the agricultural sector of the former GDR—[interuption.] My hon. Friends are chuntering behind me, but I wish that they would not. They also include the fact that the strengthening of the United States dollar against the ecu will substantially reduce the cost of exporting EC surplus production.

645
The Commission's proposal to reduce the remaining United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts by one third is inadequate according to the NFU and takes no account of the United Kingdom's commitment to a fixed exchange rate within the EMS. The NFU says that all our green rates should be aligned to a general rate so that British farmers no longer have to produce under the handicap of monetary disadvantages. I make no apologies to the House for reading out some of the details g' ven to me because they are current and important and they represent the collective view of the NFU nationally.
I shall now come to the problems facing my friends locally. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) mentioned a multitude of minor disadvantages which, to a farmer, are major disadvantages. The new silage and slurry regulations came into effect on 1 March and the Food Safety Act 1990 comes into effect on 1 July. Those pieces of legislation, together with the regulations on the welfare of livestock, are terribly important. They are welcomed by farmers, but they all pose additional costs at a time when farmers in my constituency are not just on the margin but, with their borrowings, over the margin.
I shall not say that more and more are leaving farming because, being good productive midlands farmers, they are trying desperately hard to continue in their occupation and support their families. However, even if they survive, the real penalty is investment. They do not have enough funds to invest. Hence, in my area we have seen the closure of a number of distributors of farm equipment. As farmers no longer buy the equipment, the distributors face problems and that works its way back to those who manufacture the equipment, including tractors and a wide variety of other equipment Therefore, problems are facing not just the farmers who are directly involved, but those in the chain who provide farmers with the mechanisms to produce the food that we need, but which is in surplus.
The position on fallen stock is most unsatisfactory. It is wrong for farmers to have to pay £50 a beast or £5 a sheep for the removal of dead stock. In addition, although it is not a large amount, the change in excise duty on tractors made the farming world extremely excited.
8.34 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In this debate we should be considering two issues—first, the current parlous state of British agriculture and, secondly, the uncertainty about the future. That is the recurrent theme that I find when I talk to farmers. They want to know where they are going. Those two issues pose two fundamental questions. First, is the common agricultural policy the right vehicle to deal with present and future problems arising in the agriculture industry? Secondly, what can the United Kingdom Government do to help?
My right hon. Friend the Minister said in his speech to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting in February that the
"CAP has become an engine for its own destruction."
That is hardly surprising. The CAP institutionalises the command economy—the brainchild of socialism bred by dogma out of theory. It is a managed market, which is a many tentacled creature of central control, bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste. It has one success to its credit: in eastern Europe the totalitarian states have engineered shortages, but in western Europe the CAP has engineered surpluses.
646
I want to invite hon. Members to look at the accounts of the common agricultural policy. We should look first at the profit and loss account. The costs of agricultural support are now impossible to contain within a budget of £23 billion. We should also look at our sales profile. For domestic consumers it is cash on the nail, but for foreign buyers there are knock-down prices and extended credit. If I wanted to be facetious, I would tell how our armed forces in the Gulf bought foreign.
The beef mountain has already been mentioned. I do not agree with the figures that have been quoted because estimates vary from between 700,000 tonnes to 930,000 tonnes. However, more than 90,000 tonnes of that beef is in the United Kingdom alone. That is quite excessive. If we consider farm incomes, we see that they are at rock bottom.
At the end of the accounts we find the auditors' report. It is a catalogue of management failures, fraud, deficiencies and uncontrolled expenditure. It is little wonder that my right hon. Friend the Minister has said that the CAP needs radical change.
My right hon. Friend the Minister knows as well as I do that significant items are not even stated on the balance sheet. The CAP has spawned a monoculture with an all too obvious effect on ecology and environment. The enouragement of agri-business has had an adverse effect on family farms. We have caused antagonism to our trading partners throughout the world by our policies of subsidised exports. Also, the barriers that we have erected around our own markets have had a devastating effect on the economies of third world countries.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is somewhat constrained in what he can say because the CAP is an intregal part of the treaty of Rome. No doubt he feels inhibited by fear of sending shock waves or the wrong signals to our Community partners. I am not similarly constrained and I want to tell the House that the notion that a prosperous United Kingdom agriculture industry can emerge from reform of the CAP is a triumph of hope over experience. The CAP has had time and money enough, but it is fundamentally flawed. In contrast with other activities of the European Community, there can be no convergence in agriculture—geography, topography and climate do not respond to regulation or directive and never will. The system is not working and no amount of tinkering will make it work. Necessary decisions are not being made on time, but the system does not facilitate decision making. It cannot reach the right decisions for the various agricultural activities in the Community, and every decision, by definition, must be a compromise. Our industry—whether it be efficient or inefficient farmers, small or big farmers, upland or lowland farmers—is prejudiced as a result.
With its green currencies, its own monetary system— monetary compensatory amounts —its own programme of legislation and its own bureaucracy, the CAP is an awesome object lesson in the inevitable consequences of political and monetary union. The danger is that the CAP will yet prove to be the rock on which the European Community, as we know it, founders.
I said that I would suggest what the Government should do to help. I do not think that any hon. Member dissents from the view that the industry desperately needs a definitive and positive statement on future support

647
arrangements such as income aid, landscape grants and commodity support. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the positive comments that he made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made an important point about quotas. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect of a quota system on our sheep population. He could do the industry much good by persuading his partners in the Community to nail, once and for all, the prospect of quotas for sheep or other commodities which are not already subject to quotas.
I should like to make two other suggestions to my right hon. Friend which I hope will be helpful. First, he should do all that he can to encourage co-operatives which extend beyond the farm gate. The competition that British agriculture faces from abroad is better organised, far more aggressive and taking too much of our market. Much of that competition derives from a strong and progressive producer-owned co-operative base.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend should stimulate the marketing of United Kingdom farm produce by increasing funds for the Food From Britain organisation to match those enjoyed by the French agriculture and food industries. We have good saleable products, but we must beef up their marketing and brand identity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider whether Food From Britain can play a more important part in helping us to achieve that.
We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, opinion formers. Let us go forth from the House and sing the praises of British food and drink products. I commend that message to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, who ran down British products so many times, which was regrettable. We can all play a tremendous part, and British agriculture will thank us for doing so.
8.44 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: We were reminded earlier how much we shall miss the debating style and eloquence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The hon. Gentleman is one of the best debaters in the House and has the keenest cutting edge when he speaks. He never, however, descends to malevolent insults. The Minister's persuasive pugnacity, which we often enjoy, would be all the more effective if he did not descend to offensive insults. I hope that he will apologise for what he said to me earlier.
Mr. Gummer: I have had an opportunity to check the record. On the 21 occasions when we have had agriculture debates or questions, the hon. and learned Gentleman has contributed to three. Tomorrow will be the anniversary of the first question that he has asked me since I have been Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If he feels that anything that I have said underestimates what he has done, I withdraw it, but those are the figures.
Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, especially as I raised an agriculture matter in another debate two days ago, that I am my party's spokesman on trade and industry. I see no reason to defend my contributions record in the House.
The Minister mentioned a visit that he paid to my constituency where, he says, the views that he expressed in
648
the House were well received by farmers. A quick check tonight with an official of one of the farming unions failed to reveal any recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's paying a visit as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should therefore welcome his telling the House exactly when he was so well received by officials of farming unions in my constituency. If he would like to correct that —I extend this invitation in a genuine spirit—I should happily organise meetings in my constituency with members of the two farming unions in Wales and the Country Landowners Association. I hope that the Minister will accept that invitation.
I ask the Minister to answer a question that I put today and also on 16 April—I was hoping that the Minister might listen to this point—in the debate on the British Technology Group Bill. I hope that he will tell the House that the Government have decided not to give away all the patents, copyrights and designs that have resulted from research sponsored—and successful as a result—by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It would be quite wrong to give that intellectual property to a private investor, who may then disperse it around the world and lose for Britain the profits that could be gained from it.
The Minister referred to my contributions to agriculture debates but did not take into account comments that I may have made, for example, in the Welsh Grand Committee and elsewhere, so perhaps I should repeat some of them in what I shall call a plea from the hills. We hear much from our constituents in correspondence about protection of habitat. Whether it be newts, red kites or, dare I say it, even badgers, it is important to ensure that habitats are protected. The Government should bear in mind that the most important habitat in rural mid-Wales is that of its people. The people of mid-Wales, who populate its villages, have created that environment by their efforts as farmers, and people from the cities wish to preserve and enhance it.
In the election campaigns in the 1980s farmers in mid-Wales were subjected to advice from Ministers. Some memorable advice given in 1982 by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was that they should produce, produce, produce. The farmers did as they were told. They almost always did exactly as they were bid by the Government because they trusted them—until recently.
Now, farming in mid-Wales faces the same situation that was faced by other great Welsh industries, such as the coal industry, which has declined from some 200 pits to three, and the steel industry, which employed tens of thousands of people and now employs relatively few. Farmers feel that agriculture is next. It is a much bigger industry than coal or steel ever were in Wales. The consequences of the Government's policy are causing a decline, referred to by several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), which is of a scale that makes farmers feel that the coal and steel industries were probably not so badly treated after all.
There is little else to do in parts of rural Wales other than farm. Whether one lives in the valleys of the river Hafren or the river Banwy or in the villages of Llanwnog or Derwen-las, the idea that farmers can diversify is unrealistic. Some diversification can be achieved, but the idea that in Derwen-las one can sell love-spoons carved by farmers to passing trade that never passes is absurd.

649
However, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office seem to believe that diversification is an easy option, which anyone can achieve even if they are untrained for it or for any other job. It is not good enough to tell farmers who live in mid-Wales that if they go to Wolverhampton or Chester they will find jobs in factories, Marks and Spencer offices or local councils there. The Minister knows that such movement would not only disrupt the lives of those individuals, who would find it difficult to cope with the change, but alter the character and demographic make-up of a historic established community in mid-Wales.
We have the advantage of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The chairman, Glyn Davies, and his board do excellent work. However, will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales recognise that a far more direct input by that board into agriculture and tourism, especially the building of hotels, could provide some alleviation in terms of jobs to enable people from farming families to continue to live and work in mid-Wales? My constituency has the lowest rate of unemployment but the highest rate of growth in unemployment in Wales. That trend must be reversed before we, too, come high in the unemployment league.
Farming has a future, but it needs help. I was extremely disappointed by the refusal of the Welsh Office to assist financially in the creation not only of an abattoir but a farm-to-package meat-processing plant in the Llanidloes area. That would make a tremendous difference to sheep and lamb producers in mid-Wales. Will the Minister consider the Government's abattoir policy and speak to the Secretary of State for Wales about creating, and assisting in the creation of, Euro-standard abattoirs to serve Welsh agriculture?
We all subscribe and pay lip service to schemes that will enable farmers successfully to manage the environment, for that will be the key to their survival, but although the Minister used fine words in that part of his speech today, he did not say that he was willing to finance such policies. He must use the words and pay for the policies or the greatest industry in Wales will decline and the population will decline with it.
8.54 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: This has been one of the best debates on agriculture that I have ever sat through, and I am delighted to make a brief contribution to it.
I very much enjoyed the robust contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton last, but not least, because we shall miss his contributions in the future. I wish that he had not announced that he was making what might be his last speech because I thank that we shall have another full year in which he could make many more good, robust speeches.
Common threads have run through the speeches this evening. We all recognise that agriculture is in crisis, with spending on the CAP at its highest yet and farm incomes at their lowest since the second world war. In addition, uncertainties about the future during the reform of the CAP sap the confidence of the farming community. Because agriculture thrives on stability, it has responded
650
positively to the support placed on food production which, in a way, has caused some of the problems that we face today. However, it is worth recalling that, as a result, this country has a supply of temperate foodstuffs available to housewives and consumers that is second to none in quality, price and choice. We have not seen a queue for bread for many years. Further vicious reductions in production will only exacerbate the problems, as farmers desperately try to produce more to maintain their incomes and remain in business. At the same time, they are thwarted by the fact that they must operate under a handicap of monetary disadvantage.
The European Commission's proposal to reduce the remaining United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts by only one third is unacceptable and discriminatory. British farmers are being prevented from competing equally with other member states.
The livestock sector, too, is in a fragile state. Its predicament will be exacerbated by the weakening of support for beef and sheep. We have already suffered directly because of the reunification of Germany and the developments in eastern Europe. The beef industry would welcome like a hole in the head a 2 per cent. reduction in the milk quota and the resulting cow and heifer cullings.
A little has been said about the cost of German unification that is being borne by the whole Community. Will the Minister deal with that issue and say why, in the 1988 Budget, provision was made for the cost of reunification? It would have taken a wizard with a magic ball to foresee precisely what the costs would be. We know only too well that this country and others are bearing more than their fair share of that cost. Why did not West Germany pay for the cost of reunification? That is the right and proper course. It is what should have happened but, sadly, has not. We are suffering because of it.
The long-term reform of the CAP, particularly the MacSharry proposals, exercises everyone's mind. As a member of the Agriculture Select Committee, I recently went to Brussels with my colleagues to meet Mr. MacSharry as part of our inquiry into animals in transit and to discuss the future of the CAP and his proposals. He reacted in a combative and competent manner to questions put to him. He will not easily be moved from his proposals, which are fatally flawed from the point of view of agriculture in Europe as a whole and this country in particular. It makes no sense to fossilise agriculture by subsidising the inefficient at the expense of the efficient; nor does it make sense to move to a centrally controlled system of food production. We have seen that in the Soviet Union and know how disastrous it would be and to what it may lead in a few years' time.
It is important to grasp the nettle once and for all and to change from a system of support for food production to one of support for the land and the environment. The farmers who husband our greatest national resource, the countryside, need a period of stability to plan their individual businesses and to look to the future with confidence. The changeover in support should be phased in over perhaps a decade, as it has taken that long for our present problems to develop. There should increasingly be a move towards an awareness of the marketplace, with a positive attitude to the quality of production and food marketing.
We in this country produce some excellent quality food. We have proven management techniques. But we fail miserably on promoting and marketing. I am longing for

651
the day when, for example, English or Welsh lamb is sold as a sought-after, high-value commodity in its own right in the shops and supermarkets of Europe. I am longing for the day when British farmers are rewarded directly for responding to the disciplines of the market while maintaining their land in the way that is best for future generations.
Let us face up to the fact that the CAP is based on politics and has little to do with agriculture or what is best for agriculture and its most important ancillary industries. One thing is certain: any reforms must be fair across the Community as a whole and must be seen to be fair. I suggest that any cuts in production should be equal across the Community and that national Governments should decide how to implement them in their own countries. Instinctively, I wish to go one step further, but I suspect that at this stage that will not happen. I should like national Governments to take the responsibility, once again, for their own agriculture. In the long term, that is the way forward.
9.1 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) that this has been an extremely good debate. I am sorry that the time available to me and to other hon. Members has been cut because the Front Benchers need to wind up, and I shall be as brief as I can.
Despite the fact that this year's EEC price review takes place at a time of falling farm incomes, the United Kingdom has had a significant trade deficit in food and drink—therein lies a glimmer of hope for our hard-pressed agriculture sector. The obvious conclusion is that United Kingdom producers are less successful than their European and other counterparts in the world in marketing their products in this country. That problem must be addressed from two angles.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that our farmers should get together in co-operatives, as their French counterparts do so successfully. In Wisbech, in my constituency, there is a successful co-operative in the fruit-growing area. That is a way forward. Economies of scale can be gained by co-operation.
The Government have a role to play in ensuring that they promote British products and encourage the British public to buy British. They are right to be concerned at the frightening increase in the proportion of the Community budget spent on the CAP and are rightly proud of initiating the CAP reform and proper budgetary discipline. The Government would have more support from farmers in my constituency were it not for the grievance at the fact that they are not allowed to compete fairly and equally with their European competitors. The playing field is certainly not level.
United Kingdom arable farmers must work under two major disadvantages, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister recognised them. First, for years the green rates have put Britain at a disadvantage. They subsidise imports and penalise exports. The green money system is not compatible with the single market, but our farmers cannot wait until 1992. Furthermore, the third cut that is offered in the present price review is not acceptable.
652
The second disadvantage is that the co-responsibility levy penalises the larger and more efficient British cereal grower. The Government say that they are completely opposed to that, but in this year's price review they propose to double the levy from 3 to 6 per cent. The Minister has an important task on his hands in ensuring that he delivers on both those counts.
It seems that the price reductions in the current review will hit arable farmers in north-east Cambridgeshire harder than most. They crop sugar beet, wheat, oilseed rape, some flax, peas and, of course, potatoes. Sugar beet will face a 5 per cent. cut in support; oilseed rape, flax and peas will each be cut by 3 per cent.; and, as I said a moment ago, wheat growers face a doubling of the co-responsibility levy from 3 to 6 per cent.
There are few alternative crops for the growers in my area. The harsh cuts in support for oilseed rape and flax will force more land back into cereal production. The cuts in sugar support prices seem unjustified since it is the growers and processors who pay levies to meet the cost of the EC regime. The only other cash crop that forms a significant proportion of many of my constituents' farm incomes is potatoes. Currently only those destined for starch come under the EC budget proposals, but that may well change post-1992.
A major problem with potatoes has only just come to light but it will affect the farm incomes of my constituents. The source of much of our seed is Scotland which, with its harsh climate, has produced excellent seed potatoes for many years. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland operates a classification system which complies with the EC requirements. It guarantees the buyer of the seed a virus-free and disease-free product. Last year the potato crop of one of my constituents failed totally. When he tested it, he found high levels of virus. His loss amounted to £40,000 or £50,000. As a result of the publicity that we gave to that incident, 80 farmers in my constituency tested the seed that they received from Scotland before setting it this year. Of the 80 who tested the seed at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany at Cambridge, eight had samples with virus levels of between 30 and 40 per cent. That seed is worthless and, luckily, has been replaced by the merchants.
That incident raises a number of important questions, such as who is responsible for the seed being so far removed from its classification and certification, and who is responsible for informing the farmers who have taken delivery of seed which might be infected? I have a particular case in mind. I have with me the register of last year's Scottish seed potato crop from which one can locate every farmer, every producer and even the fields in which the potatoes were grown. Two farmers in my constituency took delivery of 24 tonnes from a grower in Scotland. We estimate that his total tonnage is 621 tonnes. Where have the other 537 tonnes gone? It is likely that if 24 tonnes are infected, the whole crop will be infected.
What is happening in Scotland? There seem to be three possibilities. First, the last two mild winters may have led to the aphids which carry the virus over-wintering, but surely the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland realised that and should therefore have introduced more rigorous testing. Secondly, the problem may be well known to growers and to DAFS and they may hope that a climatic change in the next few winters will mean that it will go away. Thirdly, perhaps there is fraud and corruption in Scotland and tickets of certification are

653
being attached to bags of seed potatoes which are ordinary wares and not the true Scottish seed which has been properly inspected and passed.
I urge the Government to conduct a thorough inquiry into that incident in Scotland. I hope that they will liaise with the National Farmers Union and the National Association of Seed Potato Merchants to examine the sale agreement that farmers undertake because current levels of compensation are derisory. We must also examine the level of legal protection for farmers who face large losses. I ask the Ministry to use all available channels to alert all potato growers to the problem.
CAP reform is vital. We need reforms which satisfy certain conditions. Any price reductions and cuts in quotas should apply to all farmers in all areas equally—there should be no special deals for those in the Mediterranean areas. Set-aside should be used more in the arable sector. Goodness knows, my own fenland landscape could do with a few more trees, but the rate of set-aside, and the money paid, must be at the right level to encourage farmers to take land out of production. The present figures are far too low.
Environmental issues should enter centre stage. Britain wants a framework in which each country selects its own priorities. I congratulate the Minister on his forthright and robust appraisal of the problems facing the industry, and I also thank him for his positive proposals in regard to CAP reform.
9.10 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I apologise for my husky voice. I have overused my vocal cords in the past couple of days in the cause of defeating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to learn that I shall not speak for as long tonight!
The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev Ian Paisley) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) paid special tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who said that his speech tonight might be the last one that he would address to the House. Let me add my tributes to theirs. The hon. Member for Tiverton, with his hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), has been a regular attender of our agriculture debates over recent years, and they have both contributed regularly. I have not always agreed with what they have said, but I have come to respect them as Members of Parliament who have served the House with diligence and loyalty. They have served their constituency interests to the best of their abilities, and according to their lights. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge, when he replies to the debate, that his party will be the poorer for losing their services.
Today's debate has revealed the state of flux in which agriculture finds itself. Despite the apparent differences between the two opening Front-Bench speeches, I believe that there is a large measure of agreement between them about the essential problems of the industry. The debate was, however, given a certain spice by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord)—a Tory Member—who suggested that his party should adopt a policy abandoned by the Labour party after the 1987 general election. Similarly, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr.
654
Wiggin) suggested that the Government adopt a policy rejected by the Liberal party after their defeat, on policy grounds, in the 1983 election.
The debate has certainly been well informed, and, with the exception of the apparent disagreement between the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, good natured. I was, however, reassured by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who told me that the Minister's comments had been "restrained".
There is a growing consensus in Britain about agricultural politics, which must be good. If there is one thing that the agriculture industry needs, it is stability and long-term confidence. We believe that, if the growing consensus helps to bring that about, we shall all have served our country and industry well.
There is agreement about three of the principal matters that have been debated this evening. First, on the question of budgetary limits, the Minister, in his typically robust way, made it clear that he intends to resist any breach of those limits in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the Minister would receive our support. With one or two exceptions, the House believes that the Minister is following the right cause and we wish him well in defending those budgetary limits.
Secondly, there is agreement that there must be reform of the common agricultural policy. We all recognise that and many of us believe that it is desirable. Thirdly, there is largely agreement that we must now try to change the direction of agricultural support away from commodity price support and redirect it into environmental and countryside payments. That case was put effectively and persuasively by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). I was pleased to hear that she now accepts the policies that the Labour party has advocated, at least for the previous couple of years.
If there is a disagreement between the two principal sides in the debate it is a difference in the mechanism that we think is necessary to ensure that the changes take place in an orderly way. It appears that the Government are relying over-heavily on the application of market forces. They will seek robustly—as is the Minister's way—to secure price cuts in the belief that the cuts will lead to a restructuring of British agriculture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made it clear that that process would have a devastating effect on the rural communities that they represent. It will mean farm mergers and bankruptcies. It will also mean that farmers will continue to leave the land in large numbers and that the rural communities in their constituencies— and in many constituencies in the north and west of Britain —will be impoverished. We believe that the change must be a managed change, which takes account of the real needs of the British countryside, of the British consumer and of British farmers. We are not prepared to rely to the same extent that the Minister appears to do on the mechanism of the market.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pressed the Minister for details of the alternative policy that he wishes to adopt to redirect the payments for countryside management and environmental purposes. The Minister was untypically reserved in offering the House details of his policy. I was reminded of a report that I read of an address by the hon. Member for

655
Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to the Oxford farming conference this year. He began with the memorable words:
"What I say neither is nor isn't Government policy".
To judge by the Government's response to the Commission's proposal, it neither was nor was not Government policy as the Government do not have a policy for it not to be.
If we are unable to judge the Government's position from their policy for the future, we can at least examine their record over the recent past, and it is a pretty miserable record at that. Last year British farming sank further into unprecedented indebtedness now totalling £7 billion. The farmers who continued to struggle were forecast to earn real incomes only half of the levels of those in the early 1980s. In response to that domestic catastrophe, the Minister talks continuously about the importance of restructuring agriculture in other EC states. We know what he means by restructuring: he means throwing farmers off the land. It must be said that it is a subject on which he is well qualified to speak as he knows a lot about it.
During the 1980s—10 years of Conservative Government—we lost farmers at the rate of six each day. However, since the present Minister was promoted to guard our agricultural interests at Cabinet level, that steady flow has turned into a flood. Not six but 16 farmers a day go out of business. Wales and Scotland both have a higher proportion of the work force who are still involved in agriculture than has England. In Wales, we had a recent report from Professor Midmore of Aberystwyth university which warned that a further 11,000 jobs might be lost in the next two years. Two weeks ago, the Scottish agricultural college warned that half of Scotland's farm workers will be redundant by 2015.
If the Government's record is one of a huge decline in the United Kingdom's agricultural work force, can they claim that at least it has benefited the consumer? Not a bit. We all now know the figure used by the National Consumer Council in its 1988 paper, in which the cost of the common agricultural policy was identified as £14 a week for each family of four persons. The financial costs of agriculture are conventionally denominated in ecus and the inappropriately named green currencies.
Costs are also paid in environmental terms. If we were to add the environmental to the financial costs of the common agricultural policy, we should find that the true figure was far higher. There has been some tinkering at the edges in an attempt to reduce environmental damage, and some of the schemes, although limited, have been successful. Others have so far failed, largely because of the Ministry's mismanagement and lack of urgency. An example was the farm and conservation grant scheme payments for pollution control which were promised but never came. Over most of the country, we still have an agricultural policy that encourages environmental destruc-tion—the same policy which has ruined so much of our landscape, polluted our water and destroyed our wildlife habitat.
It is also a sad fact that British farmers, by and large, are held in low esteem by many members of the public. A notable exception is the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). Let me hasten to say that
656
I do not blame the farmers for that state of affairs. They are in the same position as the publicans of biblical times. I should add—and I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the analogy—that the biblical publicans were the equivalent of today's revenue men. Asked to do unpopular things, they do them as best they can. However, as they can survive only by practising a policy that is universally derided, they are bound to be criticised by the public who pay their wages. Farmers are certainly not assisted by a Ministry which is widely disbelieved by the public and which has shown itself to be incapable, as currently structured, of taking an independent regulatory role to ensure at least the safety, if not the financial wellbeing, of the consumer.
If the Ministry's record is pretty dismal—and I am sorry that the Minister finds it a source of amusement that 70 per cent. of the British public believe that his Ministry cannot be believed when it talks about food safety—can we at least pay tribute to the fact that the industry is prepared for the challenges of the single market? I am afraid that we cannot. United Kingdom farming is singularly unprepared to face 1993 with confidence. Investment levels are pitifully low. The National Farmers Union briefing on the Government publication"Agriculture in the UK:1990" said:
"Over the five years to 1989 farmers' annual investment in fixed capital fell by 40 per cent."
Our own estimates suggest a further fall of about 15 per cent. in 1990. That slump in investment is additional evidence of the gravity of agriculture's economic crisis. It is especially worrying as 1992 and the single market approach. If private sector investment is low, can we look to the Government to provide assistance? Again, unfortunately, we cannot.
Let us consider the question of the slaughtering industry, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and is of great concern to us in Wales. Last December, I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance he had given to help slaughterhouses in the Province reach European Community export standards. The reply was that, over the five years to 31 March, £4·5 million had been paid for improvements to slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland. Encouraged by this, I tabled a similar question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Back came the answer that the Department does not provide any special financial assistance for compliance with EC standards in slaughterhouses. Ditto Wales; ditto Scotland.
In Northern Ireland, thanks to its relatively progressive policy of encouraging private investment, 74 per cent. of slaughterhouses meet European export standards. In Scotland, the figure is 35 per cent.; in England it is 7 per cent.; and in Wales it is a miserable 5 per cent. How on earth does the Minister expect British agriculture to compete with European agriculture and Northern Ireland agriculture in the years following 1 January 1993? Last month's excellent report on the slaughtering sector from the Farmers' Union of Wales should dispel any complacency still lingering in the Minister's mind. We have also seen the survey of all British slaughterhouses by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which showed a hidebound industry with very low investment. According to the commission's chief economist,
"Some abattoirs are not sure what is required of them, and some do not see 1992 as a reality."

657
What kind of preparation for 1993 is this? What kind of lead are the Government giving to ensure that agriculture is fit to face the challenges of the single market?
I suppose that the slaughtering sector should heave a sigh of relief that all that it has suffered is malign neglect. Not so the state veterinary service. Hon. Members will be familiar with the disaster that has befallen the veterinary investigation service, involving the recent closure of another seven centres, with the loss of 52 posts—an act that the Minister describes as
"improvements in the quality, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the service".
It is a view that is not shared by the practitioners. Mr. A. J. C. Parker, secretary of the Cornwall Veterinary Association, writing in the Veterinary Record, said of the
closure of the Truro centre:
"The chief veterinary officer is now expecting the profession in Cornwall to provide material for their nearest investigation centre, Starcross, which, for some areas of Cornwall, represents a 300-mile round trip. He must be joking."
I do not think it is much of a joke, and I do not think that British agriculture will find it much of a joke. That is just the veterinary investigation service. Other aspects of the state veterinary service have been cut, with staffing levels now down 20 per cent. on the figure of 10 years ago, at a time of unprecedented public concern about food quality and safety—not to mention animal welfare.
Research and development has gone the same way. Just over a month ago, the Ministry issued a press notice which
said:
"Baroness Trumpington urges food industry to invest in R and D"—
and I am surprised that the notice did not have a sub-text saying, "because the Ministry of Agriculture certainly will not do it on your behalf". According to the Agriculture and Food Research Council officials, 300 further jobs in agricultural research and development will go this year.
In the Ministry's own directly-provided service—the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service—a crisis is building up. According to its director-general, Peter Bunyan, the farm and countryside service, which is responsible for the very service that the hon. Member for Congleton thinks will be at the heart of our system of agriculture,
"is down to a level where it is difficult for those who remain to cope with the current workloads."
We have looked at the dismal state of the agricultural infrastructure in the United Kingdom. What about marketing? The difficulties here were vividly illustrated by the hon. Member for Ludlow. Last year, the food and drink sector of the United Kingdom economy had the largest deficit of all sectors. Why should this be so when the lion's share of the deficit was with countries that have climates similar to, or worse than, our own? Could this, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman, be related to the fact that our own marketing and promotion organisation —Food From Britain—has a budget one seventh the size of that in France or Germany? Or could it be that the confidence of British consumers in domestic produce is diminished by their inability to trust the Ministry to safeguard their welfare and safety?
However, there is hope for the industry. That hope is to be found in reforming agriculture policy away from overwhelming reliance on price support as the mechanism for maintaining farm incomes. It must go towards the concept of environmental management, or green premiums.
658
As we refine and hone our policy, it is increasingly clear that the Labour party is a source of inspiration for the Government's position on countryside management via agricultural policy. It is a policy that we advocated two years ago. It is a policy now belatedly being accepted by this Government. The trouble is that, even though the Government are adopting the policy, they are not doing much at the moment about implementing it.
Let us look at the Government's claims about their achievements in this area. The Minister wrote in The Times on 1 April—April fool's day, quite appropriately—as follows:
"Support through payments linked to production must fall and there must be more emphasis on direct payments for custody of the countryside. Britain",
he proudly proclaimed,
"has been the leader in this change."
Later in the same article the Minister wrote:
"We must also begin to bring agricultural prices up to a more realistic level."
That is an odd position to take if one believes that farmers should be paid more for countryside management and less for crop production. It is also somewhat inconsistent with the Minister's self-proclaimed pre-eminence among the price cutters in the Council of Ministers. Perhaps he can explain how higher food prices can be reconciled with food surpluses and the need to liberalise trade and reduce the gap between world and European Community prices. Nor am I sure how this fits in with the Government's proclaimed view of reducing inflation as its central economic objective.
As for the claim that Britain is in the lead in introducing environmental criteria into agricultural policy—precisely the point developed by the Minister in his opening speech —let us turn to a more impartial source than The Times. We could not have one more impartial than Agra-Europe, which commented thus three weeks ago on the same subject:
"The Dutch and the Danes have already agreed agricultural environmental legislation which is far in advance of that in other EC countries."
So much for the Minister's claim.
The specific areas in which the Minister boasted so much for Britain were as follows:
"Our schemes for Environmentally Sensitive Areas set the pattern for Europe, as have our encouragement of farm woodlands and broadleaf planting, our establishment of nitrate-sensitive areas, our aid for diversification and our support for organic farming."
Let us consider those points individually.
ESAs have been a success, I acknowledge that, as we have acknowledged it continually since they were adopted. However, the payment levels were fixed and have not been reviewed, and in the period since they were fixed they have been effectively devalued by 23·4 per cent. The Government have refused to maintain their value—some commitment to ESAs.
The Ministry makes great claims for farm woodlands and broadleaf planting. They are admirable schemes, but his target is 12,000 hectares per annum. The latest figures from the Forestry Commission show a planting total of barely half the target. In Wales, where we have particular problems as a result of the decline in farm incomes, we have had a grand total since the scheme has been implemented of 93 hectares over three years under the farm woodland scheme.
For diversification, one of the Minister's own schemes for the maintenance of farm incomes by encouraging

659
alternative enterprises, the story is pretty much the same. Expenditure during the first three years of the scheme's operation totalled less than £5 million and, according to recent Ministry figures, during that period farm incomes fell by a massive £152 million.
The most ridiculous claim is the one that the Minister makes for his assistance to organic farming. He has been promising us year after year that he will shortly be announcing his organic conversion scheme. It appears to me that the Government still hold the view of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who described organic farming as "a way to rip off the customer". We have never had a repudiation of that view from the Ministry of Agriculture. Now that the right hon. Member has forcibly left the Government and decided to spend more time with his family, perhaps the Minister would take this opportunity to repudiate that view and assert that organic farming does have a role to play.
I can imagine the Minister making that announcement, kitted out in a purple track suit. Hee would be the Government's own Mr. Green—the David Icke of the Tory party—though it would require some nimble footwork to accommodate Mr. Icke's bizarre spiritualism into the Minister's High Church Anglicanism.
I said at the outset that we had shared objectives. But our means of achieving them are very different. We agree on the necessity to redirect support away from production and towards environmental goals. We recognise that we shall in future operate within international trading constraints which may make even the regular EC budgetary wrangles seem easy and harmonious. Where we differ is in our approach to the type of assistance to agriculture which is measured not in ecus and aggregate measures of support but in our commitment to the agricultural infrastructure, to investment, to training, to research and development, to adequate veterinary manpower, to food safety measures and to marketing.
Those matters are not the subject of GATT negotiation or EC legal cases on unfair competition. Neither GATT negotiators nor EC Commissioners care two hoots about how much we support those aspects of our agriculture industries—except, in the case of the latter, the other EC members probably support the British Government's destructive line on the ground that it benefits their national agricultural industries. After all, the more damage the British Government do here, the less other member Governments have to invest to continue out-competing us.
It is in the interest of us all—farmers, consumers and environmentalists—to get our agriculture policy right. We have shared objectives on the central thrust of agricultural restructuring. But the Government must recognise that there is a role for the public sector. They must restore the cuts that they have made in investment in that infrastructure. Only by doing that shall we be in a position in 1993 to compete on a level playing field with our trading partners in Europe.
9.36 pm
Mr. Gummer: I shall reply to what has been a valuable and interesting debate. It was marked on the Government Benches by a degree of realism which was not always heard
660
in some speeches from Opposition Members, and it was certainly not heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
That hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), wants to have the argument both ways. On the one hand he demands that we have considerable reductions in spending through the common agricultural policy. On the other, he bemoans the fact that British farmers have lower incomes. The hon. Member for South Shields chided the EC for not accepting the American proposition, as he put it, of a 75 per cent. cut in support. Clearly, he wants a 75 per cent. cut in support. How he ties that in with the kind, sweet remarks he makes for the farmers I do not know.
It is clear that the hon. Member for South Shields wants to have it both ways. Half his speech was aimed at farmers while the other half was aimed at consumers. The first half was designed to say how nice it would be if farmers had bigger incomes and the second half was based on the principle of how nice it would be if consumers got lower prices and taxpayers paid less taxes.
My hon. Friends and I have been honest enough to say that one cannot square that circle. We must face the fact that if we are to bring the budgetary arrangements of the CAP under control, we must move to more realistic prices, at a pace that the industry can accept. The hon. Member for South Shields proclaimed today his conversion to the market. His phrase about the market will be quoted against him in every debate in which Labour Members take part, for if only they had been converted to the market in all other respects, what a different nation Britain would have been.
I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mean by his references to the market that farmers should be deprived of all support. I hope that at least he accepts my statement that there is a continuing need for support for agriculture because we cannot ask British and European farmers to produce food under conditions which are severely more onerous than conditions that apply elsewhere in the world, and not expect to give them some support. My hon. Friends have clearly pointed out a number of areas of which that is true.
The hon. Member for South Shields discussed what he called the paltry amount of my budget that I spend on the environment. In doing so he did himself the disservice of using the figures. He mentioned 7 per cent. of the budget. It is strange that he did not mention the fact that 80 per cent. of the budget is dictated from Brussels, so the 7 per cent. of which he spoke represents well over a quarter of the budget over which I have control. When it comes to setting an example to the rest of Europe I can thus claim to be the only Minister in Europe who can point to the part of the budget over which he has control as evidence of his concern for environmental health—
Mr. Allan Stewart: More than a third of the budget, in fact.
Mr. Gummer: Indeed. I was being too generous to the hon. Member for South Shields, perhaps. We in Britain are setting an example that has been increasingly followed by other countries in the Community—
Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Gummer: On this one occasion.
Dr. Clark: I shall be brief, but it is important to clarify this matter. What I said was that over a period of years farmers should come to rely primarily for their income on the market, but that we believe that they need support. That is why we have advocated a green premium for positive management of the environment and to develop less intensive farming. If we ask them to look after the countryside, we must admit that farmers still need support.
Mr. Gummer: I remind the hon. Gentleman of his speech, in which he lauded the American proposal of a 75 per cent. cut in support over the next 10 years. With all the green premiums in the world, I do not believe that British farmers can achieve such a cut at that pace. It is not humanly possible for them to do that; and if the hon. Gentleman did not mean that, he should not have chided the Community for not agreeing to the 75 per cent. cut. The hon. Member for South Shields cannot have it both ways. If he looks at the record, he will find that what I say about his speech is correct.
I have a great deal of sympathy with and respect for the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). He is a working, practical farmer who always addresses the House with the charm and wit that we have grown to love. His speech today, however, did not meet his usual standards. It is not possible to be a member of a party that is wholly committed to our membership of the European Community and at the same time to pretend that we can run an agriculture policy in Britain different from the common agricultural policy. It was not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say, in response to a seated intervention that should not have been made, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was responsible for everything: 80 per cent. of my budget is decided in Brussels. I happen to think that that is right. I support the common agricultural policy, and I wish to reform it. In that I differ from some of my colleagues, whose views on repatriation are at least credible. But the hon. Gentleman neither wants repatriation nor is prepared to accept the inevitability of a common agricultural policy, and that is not a tenable position. Never before have we accused the hon. Gentleman of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
One reason why I was so sharp with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was that it is my experience that his party is extremely good at saying what sounds right locally, knowing that it will never have to carry out its proposals anywhere else. I absolve the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North from doing that in all circumstances except this evening's debate. I hope that he will read again what he said. He cannot tell the people of Wales or of the United Kingdom that the Liberal party now favours a policy that denies the realities of the Common Market which he sought to join and of which he is a supporter. As such, he must accept its inevitable results, which are that the Community makes these decisions. If we want those changes, they have to take place within the Community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) put those points very clearly and I was pleased that he drew attention to some of the minor irritations—some of them caused by Government—which add together to the feeling in the farming community that people outside do not respect or understand them sufficiently. There is a real problem in Britain where the links between town and countryside are much less strong than they are in many
662
other countries. Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies and who love and care for the countryside recognise that it is often difficult to explain even to some of our fellow Members of Parliament who represent urban areas quite what the problems of the countryside are. I said in response to a question in the Select Committee that there is a curious view in the House that poverty is all right so long as it comes thatched. There is a much sharper attitude towards urban poverty than towards rural poverty. Similarly, people are less interested in the difficulties of the countryside because the vast majority of people are urban and suburban. We have to find a better way of explaining to them what they need and how they depend upon those who live in our rural areas.
I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) disagrees with my views on the European Community, but some of the points that he made today were extremely valuable and I shall be watching them with great care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in what he told us might have been a valedictory agricultural speech, was particularly forceful. I join others in congratulating him on a long service to the House and a particular quality and directness of speech. There are few hon. Members to whom one is more careful to listen and to reply for he has a reputation which is second to none for guarding the interests of his constituents. I do not agree with him about quotas. They are the means of depriving British agriculture of its major advantages of competitiveness. I do not think that they can be borne either by the industry or by the public. They would fossilise the industry and they would be impossible for the public to accept. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with me and I believe that we will continue disagreeing on that issue, but I honour him for the clarity and the way in which he put that forward.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that it would be of benefit if he were to look carefully at the figures and the facts before suggesting that the proposals would mean cuts for sheep producers in the hills. One reason why the Government have been prepared to accept the Commission's proposal of a 2 per cent. cut in the sheep price is the extra help that will go to sheep producers in the most difficult areas. That is why we support it. Yet the hon. Gentleman was saying that it would cut the incomes of people in those same less-favoured areas. The whole process is to try to help those in most need and that is why I increased the HLCAs by 14 per cent. and increased the suckler cow premium to the highest possible rate in those areas where it is most difficult to produce animals. That is why I have consistently supported the means by which we have helped farmers in the most difficult areas of the country.
One thing that farmers and Members of Parliament should do occasionally is show some gratitude on behalf of the industry for those things that we get right. The public as a whole react better if they feel that taxpayers' money is welcomed instead of always being asked for more. We have to get the tone right if urban and suburban people are to continue to support us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) spoke about egg producers. I still think that he is not entirely right. If our egg producers really stamped all those boxes with, "Eggs produced in Britain" and really showed that British eggs are more safely produced than other eggs,

663
and got the Labour party to stop bashing British food, we could make our higher standards into a marketing advantage. We must try to improve those standards.
Dr. David Clark: The Minister is misleading the House.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that I am being misleading. I did not take every opportunity in the House to stir up scares, problems and difficulties. I was not the one who was attacked by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North for letting farming down by attitudes over beef problems. I did not recommend in the House that people should eat New Zealand apples because British apples were not good enough. I was not the one who said on television that I would not eat a British sausage. The hon. Gentleman now has reason to believe differently. The Opposition said all those things. Anyone who dares to suggest that he has any interest at all in British farming should consider what he says about British food, which is the best, the safest and the most surveyed food in the world. It does not deserve what, for several years, the Labour party has attempted to do to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) again displayed his deep understanding of agriculture and his concern for those who work in it. I share his concern about pollution regulations, but if agriculture is to prove its worth it is essential that the rare instances of river pollution and so on, which have been a real scandal, should not be repeated. Farmers do not want to see their industry besmirched as it has been by a few people who have broken the law so dramatically. We provide high grants for the work that has to be done in pollution control. I am pleased that I was able to announce changes to an unnecessarily difficult part of the regulations which meant that farmers could not get a grant if they had already started on the work. The changes mean that not only will they be able to start the work before claiming the grant, but they will be able to make grant applications for work that has been completed and for which they had failed to receive grant because of the rule. I thank the House for agreeing to that and I hope that hon. Members will not mind the small element of retrospection which is fair for farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome spoke about the Milk Marketing Board. We must enable the British farmer to receive a proper return for his products. To do that we must pay heed to the fact that in several recent years the British dairy farmer has received less for his milk and the consumer has paid more for it than in almost any country in Europe. That means that the system is not working as it should. We are now in direct competition with the rest of Europe. We are not taking the top part of the market, we are only 86 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, and we are still producing butter for intervention. That shows that changes in our dairy system are overdue.
I welcome the Milk Marketing Board's move. It initiated that move and is putting forward proposals. I was pleased to hear some Opposition Members say that the Government should not decide how milk should be marketed. I agree. I want the industry to publish an effective plan for marketing. I hope that it will do so and
664
that the plan will receive industry-wide acceptance. I also hope that it will be accepted by the Community because of course the Commission also has a part to play.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is always a breath of air—I will not say a breath of fresh air—on these subjects. He and I have crossed swords in the past, but on this occasion I should like to pray him in aid —if I may use that term. I hope that he will defend me against the allegation by the hon. Member for Caerphilly that I have a leaning towards spiritism. I do not use the word "spiritualism", for reasons that the House will immediately see. It is spiritism that the Opposition are after. Although the hon. Member for Antrim, North may disagree with my Catholic views, I am a darned sight nearer to him on the subject than I am to Mr. Icke and the Opposition. That is about the first time that I have been able to find a religious way of getting nearer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, although I doubt whether he will wish to advertise the fact in the north of Ireland.
We cannot usefully do anything to reform the CAP unless we ensure that the other European countries face up to the problem of fraud. People in this country will not accept a state of affairs in which they feel that they are being ripped off by large numbers of people operating in other countries. I am pleased that many countries are beginning to accept that and that there is now a considerable move to follow British advice and the British example.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) talked about pollution, and I hope that he will be happy with the points that I made on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) talked about the problems of the green pound and I remind him that we are committed to alignment in one step and not the three steps proposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and others referred to the repatriation of agricultural policy, and I shall address that question directly in the last few moments available to me. I must say to my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) that repatriation is not a practical proposition: it will not happen; no member of the Community will support it. Moreover, I do not think that it would achieve the end my hon. Friends seek.
Repatriation of agricultural policy is proposed on the basis that one could have an agricultural policy fitted in reasonably well with other national agricultural policies in a world of surplus. But if we do not argue things out within the CAP we shall have to argue them out somewhere else. Otherwise, countries will fight them out. We may give extra support to one sector only to be countered by a French move to give extra support to another. Deals that we may do to protect our agriculture will be countered by deals done by the Germans to protect theirs. In those circumstances, the repatriation of agricultural policy would lead to more difficulties rather than fewer and we should end up with less of a level playing field. Many of our farmers would also find that countries with large farming communities—for example, Greece, with 23 per cent.—would have more pressure placed on their Governments than could be brought to bear in Britain, Denmark, Holland and France. To those hon. Members who support our agriculture, I must say that it would not do our industry any good to propose what cannot be and what would not, in any case, improve the position.

665
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is right that we must face up honestly to the need fundamentally to change the CAP. It is all very well for the Labour party to talk about the CAP, to blame the Government and to say how much better things could have been. The fact is that all the changes that have been made in favour of a more sensible CAP have been made at the instigation of the British Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), in particular, led us towards major changes. It is not true that stabilisers have not worked. What has happened is that they have not worked sufficiently because we have not been prepared to take them as they should have been taken or to take the necessary compensatory measures. That is what we now have to do, and I am pressing for such action.
We all want a healthy agricultural community because only in that way can we look after our rural areas and countryside, protect our landscape and be sure of our food supplies. I am not one of those who believe that surplus is necessarily endemic. I do not believe that, in 20 years' time, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will inevitably be trying to deal with surpluses. All sorts of changes may take place and we may again need more production in Europe and in Britain. It is for that reason above all that we need to ensure that our food supplies are protected, our landscape is cared for and our people can rely on a healthy rural economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5032/91 ADD1, ADD2 and ADD3 + COR1 relating to prices for agricultural products and related measures (1991/92), 4549/91 relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/90 on the management and control of export refunds; and supports the Government's intention to seek a price settlement that respects budgetary discipline and is consistent with the agricultural guideline, and to negotiate for further changes to the Common Agricultural Policy that make it more market-orientated, reduce its costs, lead to greater integration between agricultural and environmental policies and apply fairly throughout the Community.

London Ambulance Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the London ambulance service, but I do so with no enthusiasm because the debate should never have had to take place. One would hope that the need for ambulance services, their obvious priority and the lack of party difference on how they should be run would make such a debate unnecessary. Alas, for a number of reasons—not the fault of the Labour party—the debate has become necessary. Indeed, it is the sixth debate on the London ambulance service since 1986.
In 1965 such a debate would have been held across the floor of West Ham or East Ham town hall by ward councillors, and after that in the committee rooms of the Greater London council. It is a measure of the centralisation to which ordinary people and hon. Members are now subject that I have had to ask for this debate.
The Minister may have been told that I and some of my hon. Friends have declined invitations to meet officers and members of the London ambulance board, so I will tell him and the House why. Those people are either appointed by the Secretary of State or are employed by those appointed by him. They are not responsible for providing the resources, and they are not responsible for the policy or for the reorganisation which in effect will lead to disintegration of the service and may threaten the title of the London ambulance service itself.
That service is the largest in the world. At one time it was the world's best. Alas, that cannot be said today. The emergency service is getting less and less responsive. There are major problems in management and at headquarters, and the patient transport service, which is numerically the largest part and which transports people to out-patient departments on the medical request of clinicians and practitioners, is breaking down. Both the emergency service and the patient transport service are getting into more and more trouble.
In January this year no fewer than 10,478 journeys to out-patient appointments were cancelled. That figure was in a document which, I suppose, came out of the back of a photocopier. That is what happens when centralisation and secrecy abound in government. Such a document would have been a routine report in a local council.
The effect of the cancellations, let alone the number of journeys delayed, has been disturbance, distress, dread and fear among thousands of Londoners and their families. Indeed, the concern, on-going disturbance and worse that have been caused to patients are almost unimaginable, to say nothing of the difficulties caused to those responsible for the work in hospitals who may be accused of lack of efficiency or performance.
It is no secret that Members of Parliament and councillors have received hundreds of letters. Newspaper columns have been full of complaints. The correspondence columns of the Newham Recorder, my local newspaper, have been full of such letters for two weeks. Community health councils throughout London have had meetings about the problem and are very concerned. The CHC in Newham has just published an excellent report which contains four pages of typical complaints. An elderly cancer patient had an ambulance booked for a follow-up

667
appointment but it failed to arrive. When transport was contacted to book a second ambulance for a rearranged appointment, the patient was told
"If you can walk out to the ambulance, we can't send one."
Due to lack of transport the patient had to cancel the second appointment, too.
That is relatively mild compared to many of the distressing problems that have occurred. For example, an item in my local newspaper said that a lady of 86 in an invalid chair had to wait six hours before she could go home after an appointment. Her husband, who is also disabled, was wondering where she was. I received a letter this morning from a lady suffering from Parkinson's disease. She can hardly walk but had to wait four and a half hours to get home. She wrote that she was "bewildered" by what seems to have come over our national health service.
One might wonder how we could have come to such a pass without warning, but there have been warnings. In an Adjournment debate on 31 October 1986, I pointed out that there had been a drop of 40 per cent. in patient transport journeys. The then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who is well known, said:
"I am more than happy at that development."—[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]
In other words, it was a deliberate policy—a policy to reduce the budget.
I have received a letter from Mr. Harris, the chairman of the London Ambulance Board. He said that the budget had to be reduced by 3·5 per cent.—£280,000—in the current year. Also, in an official letter, the board said that it wanted to keep demand at the post-dispute level. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, understandably demand went right down.
The health service has been cost-capped for some years. From somewhere or another an arbitrary sum has been put on the London ambulance service and it has to cut its coat according to the cloth that has been provided.
Where ambulances are necessary for emergency purposes and when doctors have said they are necessary, of all our public services, surely they should be demand-led in principle. When I raised this matter in a debate on the Consolidated Fund in 1989, the then Under-Secretary of State said:
"It cannot be financed as a demand-led service such as unemployment benefit or the prescription of drugs".—[Official Report, 20 December 1989; Vol. 164, c 528]
In other words, a doctor can prescribe drugs but he is not allowed to prescribe an ambulance.
It is a sorry state of affairs that affects all London. I have said that there were 10,000 broken appointments. There are 147 hospitals in the London area and I shall give the top 10 for cancellations. The Central Middlesex hospital had 516, Ealing hospital had 443, St. Ann's hospital, Haringey had 382, Newham general hospital had 374, Roehampton had 300, Tooting Beechlawn hospital had 240, St Thomas's had 229, Stanmore had 226, Wanstead had 226, and the London hospital had 221. That was in January. Will it go on in that way?
It will probably get worse on the question of criteria. A letter from Mr. James Harris to his officers said:
"ideally, with your assistance, we would restrict the use of ambulances to patients requiring a stretcher or wheelchair and to those undergoing serious treatment such as
668
chemotherapy, radiotherapy, renal dialysis and for severe cardiac or respiratory problems."
A letter I have received today from Mr. Wilby, the chief executive of the London Ambulance Board, puts it rather differently. He says:
"This requires ambulance services to provide suitable transport for any patient who is considered by a GP or clinician to be medically unfit to travel by other means. Ambulance transport should not therefore be provided for patients whose medical condition does not prevent them from travelling by any other means, ie. on foot, or by public or private transport."
In other words, if a clinician says that a patient needs an ambulance, a car or minicab can be provided because they count as a form of ambulance. In practice, as the lady from Newham said, anyone who can walk to an ambulance cannot have one. Such, alas, are the criteria being applied.
The problem is well known throughout the health service. Last year I read a petition from 380 members of the London ambulance service pointing out that
"the root causes of that dispute have not yet been addressed and therefore and unless and until there is a full and proper public examination of the financing, organisation and operation of the London ambulance service there remains a great and continuing risk to the health and welfare of all Londoners."—[Official Report, 7 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 565.]
I hope that the Select Committee on Health will consider that because the service is in turmoil and needs emergency treatment.
More than £3 million was spent on a computer which cannot do the job. That is now the subject of legal action. About a further £3 million is to be spent on another one. It is reported that one of the senior officers or board members has some interest in that. I do not like rumour, so three weeks ago I wrote to the chairman of the board asking whether it was true. I did not think that it was, but such rumours must be put down. I have received no substantive reply, and I hope that the Minister will find out why. I should have thought that London Ambulance Board members and officers would sign a declaration of interest, thereby making such delay unnecessary.
Reorganisation is under way—alas, not to deal with the problems that I have mentioned but something which I shall deal with in a moment. Approximately 270 officers, who did not participate in the dispute or who held different views on it, were asked to reapply for their jobs or for jobs akin to what they were doing. They were told that their contracts were being changed and that there would no longer be Whitley council representation of their collective interests. You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that Mr. Speaker Whitley was the founder of the Whitley council system, which until recently helped our collective endeavours.
Fifty of those officers failed to be reappointed. I understand that they have been offered early redundancy, early retirement or the option of giving up their officer status and becoming leading ambulance men. Jobs will be held vacant for other people. If employers treat their employees like that, how will they treat the patients whom they are elected or appointed to serve? I checked with the chairman that overtime is limited to an
average of two hours per person per week and he did not deny that.
Cost cutting is stopping emergency ambulances. A lady in East Ham had to wait 40 minutes for an ambulance. When it arrived, she was very poorly and died before reaching hospital. A letter of complaint was sent, but the reply said that the nearest ambulance was six depots away. That is not acceptable at I am on a Monday.

669
There is no accountability in this £50 million service. It is a closed book to Londoners, who know little about what is going on, and even a Member of Parliament finds it difficult to obtain information. A letter from the chairman of South West Thames health authority offers a little more information, but it is not easy to follow. There are no minutes or public proceedings, and in reply to a written question on 18 December 1990 from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the Minister said that he did not see any merit in publishing minutes. A local authority would have to publish minutes—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was keen on such practices—and the fire service has a joint authority, so why not the ambulance service?
I think that I know why. It will not be the London ambulance service as we know it for much longer if the Government have their way. According to their infamous White Paper, it will be disintegrated, literally, into business centres. There will be some 29 different areas, because the health authorities throughout London will be able to bid for patient transport services. From 1992, other people —perhaps even other ambulance services, in Kent, Surrey or wherever—and private firms will be able to bid. The service will be divided into two broad sections. Despite the fact that the ambulance service's official literature says that handling of the patient transport service is a vital part of an ambulance person's training, the 999 emergency service will be separated from the rest. Naturally, there will be eye-catching helicopters and probably some flying squads, but there are 2,000 emergency calls a day and I am not convinced that people will be reassured.
The service is disintegrating and becoming incoherent, and the staff are under great pressure. I have described what has happened to some officers. When there was an industrial problem recently, they voted 84 to 82 for industrial action. When a legal matter arose and they went to court, they lost their case and 100 of them put in for early retirement. That shows the state of morale in the service as a result of the new form of management.
Ambulance service personnel are professional Samaritans whom we ask to do a difficult and vital job. London's sick, dying and crippled people—particularly the elderly—and victims of accidents should not be sacrificed on the altar of the Government's view of how a public service should be run. Clearly, a sea change has been made in the way the service is being run. New management and new personnel have been appointed by the Secretary of State. The service is unaccountable to the citizens of London, other than in debates on the Floor of the House. That is quite wrong.
The corporate loyalty of staff is being destroyed, and funds are being capped in a way that causes people to move out of London to unfamiliar areas. I mentioned earlier an ambulance that was delayed for 40 minutes. That was probably because it had to be moved from another area in order to be more efficient. Cancellations are frequent and will not be helped by the reorganisation that is being carried out for different purposes.
The good Samaritan instructed the innkeeper to charge what the man needed; he said that he should give and, if it cost more, he would give to him. I am sure that people in London are happy to pay slightly increased taxes for a service that they want. The Government do not understand what is happening, but carry their political points of view on competition and contracts into areas where they are least desirable and practical, and where
670
they cause great damage. These schemes are being implemented surreptitiously—they have not been written down other than in the chairman's letter that I read a little earlier. The best comment that I can make about the Government and their schemes is a quotation from the book to which I referred a little earlier:
"Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do."
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I was slightly surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) a speech that appeared to belittle the concept of accountability as exercised across the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman has a reputation as a Member who is keen to see Ministers called to account at the Dispatch Box, and rightly so, for the exercise of their executive discretion, particularly in the context of the European Community. When he makes speeches on that subject, he loses no opportunity to say that the accountability mechanism which we have built up in this place over centuries is second to none. In many ways, I agree with him when he argues that point of view.
When the hon. Gentleman argued this evening about the need for an accountability mechanism for the London ambulance service, he put on a completely different hat, which does not fit him as well as the one that he is more accustomed to wearing. He must make up his mind whether the House is an effective accountability mechanism. If it is effective in the context of Europe, it is effective in the context of the London ambulance service as well.
Mr. Harry Cohen: So the Government are to blame.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Newham, South was anxious to know who was accountable for what goes on in the national health service. He wanted to know about the political accountability mechanism. It is true that the NHS is accountable to the House through Ministers, and that goes for all parts of the NHS—I do not seek to duck that point.
The hon. Member for Newham, South began by establishing the importance, which he hoped would be accepted on both sides of the House, of the ambulance service as part of the NHS. I am pleased to confirm the importance of an effective ambulance service in the context of emergency response and of non-emergency provision —the patient transport service. Both are an important part of the health service. Perhaps the importance of the emergency ambulance service is so obvious that it does not need to be recited. The work done by the London ambulance service during the Victoria and Cannon Street British Rail incidents recently is effective evidence of the importance of good emergency ambulance provision. The London ambulance service carries 500,000 emergency patients a year. Every one of them and their families and loved ones have good reason to be grateful for the service's effectiveness.
The importance of the emergency service is not in dispute any more than the importance of the non-emergency service. Sometimes the non-emergency service is less glamorous than the emergency provision. Non-emergency ambulance services are an important part of the totality of health provision. That does not mean that they must always be provided in the way that they have

671
traditionally been provided. It does not mean that provision can be made only on the basis of a single, uniform ambulance service across London. Some form of non-emergency transport for patients who need it on the basis of clinical discretion is part of the comprehensive health service which all hon. Members want provided. The London ambulance non-emergency service carries 1·7 million patients a year as a testament to the importance that health service managers attach to the non-emergency part of the service.
There is no dispute between the two sides of the House about the importance of the ambulance service. Because there is no dispute, the Government and managers of the health service have spent considerable time in recent months addressing the management issues of the London ambulance service to ensure that the service available to the people of London matches the aspirations that we all have for it. In June last year, we established a changed system of managing the London ambulance service because we believed, like the hon. Member for Newham, South, that aspects of ambulance provision in London were not as they should be and needed to be changed.
The hon. Member for Newham, South listed a catalogue of shortcomings on which he rightly wanted action to be taken; but which structure was responsible for producing those shortcomings? It can hardly be the one that he sought to blame, as it has been in operation in full form for only a fortnight. It is therefore unlikely that it was responsible for the shortcomings, about which there is no argument.
I am proud of the fact that the Government have addressed these problems. They started in June 1990 with the establishment of the new system of managers, whom the hon. Gentleman will not see. In July 1990, those managers published a short-term business plan for 1990–91—
Mr. Spearing: A business plan?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes, a business plan. They are running an operation and, like any operation in either the public or the private sector, should and do have a commitment to using their resources effectively in the service of the people that they are there to serve. In the context of the London ambulance service, that means the patients and the people of London. The management of the service is determined to ensure that its effectiveness in the service of the patients and the people of London is improved. That is why it announced that it is improving the training for emergency crews. That is why it announced its commitment to improving the response time of emergency ambulances and the concentration of non-ambulance services on those patients who need the service most and where the priority is highest. That is also why it announced the introduction of management training for middle and senior managers, which emphasises its commitment to an effective and efficient ambulance service that will improve on and address precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman enumerated.
The hon. Gentleman then talked about the changes that were introduced earlier this April and the effect of the new national health service arrangements on ambulance provision in London. From April of this year, the responsibility for the budgets of the non-emergency
672
ambulance provision in London rests, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, with the district health authorities. For the first year, the district health authorities will use those budgets to buy non-emergency ambulance services from the London ambulance service. However, from April next year, we should be able to see the district health authorities using those resources more flexibly to ensure that some of the shortcomings of the non-emergency service which the hon. Gentleman listed are addressed.
We shall be able to look at the relative priorities of non-emergency ambulance provision against the other priorities of a local health service in any particular district. The existing management system of the London ambulance service does not allow us to do that. We shall also be able to look at alternative ways of providing non-emergency ambulance provision for the people of London, including voluntary car services and alternative providers which may be able to provide the service at a lower cost or a higher quality of service at the same cost.
We shall also be able to address—indeed, we are already doing this—the issue which the hon. Gentleman rightly identified as one of the shortcomings of the traditional system of management in the London ambulance service. I refer to the number of journey cancellations. The hon. Gentleman quoted the statistics and knows that the National Audit Office has picked up on that issue and has emphasised that it needs to be addressed. The new management of the ambulance service is determined to see that that problem is addressed.
Turning to the emergency ambulance provision, the new system in the health service since 1 April maintains a centralised contract, negotiated on behalf of the four regions, which means that there is a unified emergency ambulance provision across the whole of London which is managed as an emergency service should be managed— with the priority being placed on effective provision of high-quality emergency care at short notice. Some of the most exciting developments in the London ambulance service relate to emergency ambulance provision. We are investing—not without difficulty—in improving the command and control of the ambulance service to improved response times that are not as good as they should be. We are providing cardiac defibrillators in every emergency ambulance and the staff training so that they can be used by the end of July this year. We are also providing training for ambulance staff to ensure that we have an extra 144 paramedical staff in emergency ambulances each year.
I am pleased to announce this evening that at its last meeting the South West Thames regional health authority approved an additional one-off capital allocation of £5 million for the London ambulance service. That includes £3·5 million for much needed vehicle replacement and will enable the London ambulance service to purchase 60 new accident and emergency vehicles and 60 patient transport ambulances. In addition, it will enable the London ambulance service to purchase a further nine rapid-response vehicles, bringing the total to 10—three in each division and one in the centre of London. Those rapid-response vehicles are an important part of the improvement in the emergency provision of the London ambulance service.
I do not pretend that the London ambulance service is without problems, but I vigorously reject the suggestion that the changes in management downgrade the ambulance service in any sense. They are designed

673
precisely to address the problems that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to bring to the attention of the House and to which he has every reason to demand a solution, and that is what we are bringing about.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when the United Kingdom first agreed to give official overseas aid equivalent to 0·7 per cent. of annual income; and if he will list the amount in real terms and the percentage for each year since then.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations target for official development assistance to developing countries of 0·7 per cent. of GNP was accepted in principle by the British Government in 1974, although no date was set for meeting it. The United Kingdom has provided net official development assistance since then as follows:

  Year

  Net official development assistance £ million (1989 prices)

  Official development assistance as percentage of GNP

  1974

  1,348

  0·36

  1975

  1,395

  0·38

  1976

  1,469

  0·39

  1977

  1,679

  0·44

  1978

  1,803

  0·45

  1979

  2,100

  0·51

  1980

  1,378

  0·34

  1981

  1,678

  0·42

  1982

  1,483

  0·37

  1983

  1,457

  0·35

  1984

  1,402

  0·33

  1985

  1,479

  0·33

  1986

  1,430

  0·31

  1987

  1,331

  0·28

  1988

  1,591

  0·32

  1989

  1,578

  0·31

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday April 18.

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

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, columns 3–4, on what considerations the Government based their decision not to recognise East Timor's right to self-determination.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom supported United Nations Security Council resolution 389 of 22 April 1976 which confirmed the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination. Since 1982 the United Kingdom, in company with most other member states of 206
  the European Community, has supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to promote discussions between Indonesia and Portugal with a view to reaching a solution acceptable to all parties.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, columns 3–4, what guarantees he has received or what monitoring has been undertaken to ensure that Tornados sold to Indonesia have not and will not be used against the civil population of East Timor.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no sale of Tornado to Indonesia.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government are doing to promote United Nations resolution 35/27 of 1980 on East Timor's right to independence.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom abstained on United Nations resolution 35/27 of 1980. We took the view that by so doing, in company with most European Community partners and others, we could help to promote reconciliation and the search for a diplomatic solution by Indonesia and Portugal. Since 1982, the United Kingdom has supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to find a solution to the problem which is acceptable to all parties.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, columns 3–4, on what consideration the Government based their decision to recognise the right of Indonesia to self-determination.

  The Prime Minister
  My earlier reply referred to the right of self-defence under international law. All states have the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Paul Holmes
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received from the Irish Prisoners' Support Group concerning prisoner Paul Holmes; what reply has been sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Irish Prisoners' Support Group has written a number of letters referring to Mr. Holmes's request for a transfer to a prison in Northern Ireland. The most recent was on 25 January. A reply was sent on 14 March explaining the criteria under which Mr. Holmes's request was refused.

  Bedding Material
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 70, what is the reason for the increase in the second half of the 1980s in the percentage of incidents, involving children injured in fires related to bedding, where the outcome was the death of the child.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information given in the following table suggests the main source and cause is
  207
  playing with matches. However, the number of deaths are

  Supposed cause and source of accidental dwelling fires attended by local authority fire brigades, where the material first ignited was bedding1and children aged under five died, 1981–89 (United Kingdom)

  Number of deaths.

  Source and cause

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Matches:

  playing with fire

  —

  3

  1

  1

  8

  12

  8

  7

  5

  careless handling

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Smokers' material:

  playing with fire

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  careless handling

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  misuse of equipment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Electric space heaters:

  placing articles too near

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  misuse of equipment

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  cause unspecified

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Gas space heaters:

  placing articles too near

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Electric blanket:

  misuse of equipment

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  fault in appliance

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  6

  9

  5

  5

  10

  14

  16

  10

  12

  1 bedding is defined as all bedding on the bed including mattress covers, but not beds or mattresses, or cases where the electrical insulation of an electric blanket was recorded as first ignited.

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics—(They are based on reports from fire brigades).

  Prison Education Departments
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table for England and for each region in England, giving actual expenditure on prison education departments, and expenditure required by these departments, for each year from 1986–87 to 1990–91, and their plans for 1991–92, and 1992–93, in current prices, in constant prices, and an index of constant price expenditure where 1986–87 = 100.

  Table showing expenditure on Prison Service Education Departments 1986–87 to 1992–93

  (£000)

  Region

  South East

  South West

  North

  Midland

  Total

  Price Level

  Current

  Constant

  Current

  Constant

  Current

  Constant

  Current

  Constant

  Current

  Constant

  1986–87

  Actual

  4,714

  4,714

  2,371

  2,371

  4,778

  4,778

  2,943

  2,943

  14,806

  14,806

  Planned

  4,447

  4,447

  2,077

  2,077

  4,124

  4,124

  2,337

  2,337

  12,985

  12,985

  1987–88

  Actual

  5,008

  4,754

  2,682

  2,546

  5,666

  5,379

  3,454

  3,279

  16,809

  15,958

  Planned

  5,196

  4,933

  2,514

  2,387

  5,532

  5,252

  3,329

  3,160

  16,571

  15,732

  1988–89

  Actual

  5,970

  5,275

  3,237

  2,860

  6,359

  5,619

  3,942

  3,483

  19,508

  17,236

  Planned

  6,037

  5,334

  3,176

  2,806

  6,467

  5,714

  3,971

  3,509

  19,651

  17,362

  1989–90

  Actual

  7,233

  6,008

  3,661

  3,041

  7,268

  6,037

  4,360

  3,622

  22,523

  18,708

  Planned

  7,100

  5,897

  3,704

  3,077

  7,428

  6,170

  4,829

  4,011

  23,062

  19,155

  1990–91

  Actual1

  6,946

  5,355

  3,890

  2,999

  7,638

  5,888

  5,073

  3,911

  23,547

  18,152

  Planned

  7,778

  5,996

  4,208

  3,244

  7,598

  5,857

  5,424

  4,181

  25,008

  19,278

  1991–92

  Actual

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Planned

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29,137

  20,984

  1992–93

  Actual

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Planned

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  234,000

  23,440

  208
  relatively small and subject to considerable year to year variation, making the interpretation of any changes difficult.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table shows the information available. It relates to England and Wales. A regional breakdown is available only up to 1990–91 when the Prison Service was reorganised. The information relating to 1991–92 and 1992–93 is therefore presented in totals. The table shows expenditure on teaching services and education materials.
  209
  1Some expenditure is not yet recorded in the accounts.

  2Provisional allocation.

  Working Visas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had about the future of the two-year working visa for Commonwealth citizens with(a) New Zealand and (b) Australia; and what representations he has received from each Government on the issue;

  (2) what proposals he has for the future of the two-year working visa for Commonwealth citizens after 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no present plans to amend the working holidaymaker arrangements for young Commonwealth citizens set out in paragraph 37 of the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules"—HC251. No recent discussions on the future of this scheme have taken place with either the New Zealand or Australian Government; nor have they made representations to us about this subject.

  Rape
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library guidelines issued to the courts dealing with rape cases regarding sentencing and the relevant factors to be taken into account.

  Mr. John Patten
  Guidance was given by the Court of Appeal in Rv. Billam (1986). The judgment is in the All England Law Reports for 1986, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Fire Brigades
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which lire brigades have not yet fully implemented Home Office technical bulletin 1/89; and if he will give the time scale for implementation for each fire authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are satisfied that all fire brigades in England and Wales have adopted the principal features of the guidance on breathing apparatus contained in Home Office technical bulletin 1/1989.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what items of equipment, and at what cost, Kent fire brigade has purchased for use solely for firefighting and rescue in the channel tunnel and its associated sites;

  (2) what contributions have been made by Eurotunnel Ltd. and Transmanche Ltd. to Kent county council for equipment provided by Kent fire brigade for training, firefighting and rescue in the channel tunnel and its associated sites;

  Operational men and women firefighters employed in each fire authority/FCDA in England as at 1 January 1991

  Wholetime

  Retained

  Authority

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Avon1

  —

  —

  641

  —

  —

  190

  Bedfordshire

  309

  —

  309

  131

  2

  133

  Berkshire

  392

  1

  393

  154

  1

  155

  Buckinghamshire

  320

  1

  321

  220

  2

  222

  Cambridgeshire

  245

  —

  245

  370

  3

  373

  Cheshire

  582

  —

  582

  204

  3

  207

  Cleveland1

  —

  —

  647

  —

  —

  75

  210
  (3) what provisions in terms of (a) staff and (b) equipment and at what financial cost have been made by Kent fire brigade in order that they may fulfil firefighting and rescue commitments in the channel tunnel and associated sites.

  Mr. John Patten
  Kent fire brigade has provided six uniformed and one civilian staff for channel tunnel site liaison and specialised training during the construction phase at a cost of £141,500, and 24 additional posts at a cost of £399,100 to maintain manning levels on fire appliances in the absence of those undertaking training. Equipment purchased specifically to meet its commitments consists of 40 long-duration breathing apparatus sets, and personal protective clothing, heavy duty lifting jacks and cutting tools at a cost of £565,600. Total contributions made by Eurotunnel plc to Kent county council amount to £628,400 to date, in accordance with the statements made by the concessionaries to the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill.

  Victims Charter
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which organisations he has received comments on the "Victims Charter", published by his Department on 22 February 1990; and if he has plans to issue a revised edition in the light of such comments.

  Mr. John Patten
  Comments on the charter were received from the following bodies:

  Victim Support

  Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Metropolitan Police

  Hampshire Constabulary

  Staffordshire Police

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Northumbria Probation Service

  Merseyside Probation Service.

  Many of the standards of service set out in the charter for the criminal justice agencies are already being met. Others are under discussion with the agencies concerned with a view to implementation as soon as practicable.

  Firefighters
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many operational(a) men and (b) women firefighters are employed in each fire authority/FCDA in England.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table.
  211

  Wholetime

  Retained

  Authority

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Cornwall

  154

  —

  154

  410

  —

  410

  Cumbria

  296

  —

  296

  403

  1

  404

  Derbyshire

  513

  2

  515

  376

  2

  378

  Devon

  480

  —

  480

  695

  2

  697

  Dorset1

  —

  —

  282

  —

  —

  331

  Durham

  418

  —

  418

  177

  —

  177

  Essex1

  —

  —

  858

  —

  —

  452

  Gloucestershire

  211

  —

  211

  271

  2

  273

  Hampshire

  689

  —

  689

  686

  2

  688

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  344

  2

  346

  308

  2

  310

  Hertfordshire1

  —

  —

  497

  —

  —

  242

  Humberside

  734

  —

  734

  313

  3

  316

  Kent

  812

  —

  812

  786

  3

  789

  Lancashire

  963

  —

  963

  418

  2

  420

  Leicestershire1

  —

  —

  434

  —

  —

  226

  Lincolnshire1

  —

  —

  186

  —

  —

  445

  Norfolk

  246

  1

  247

  441

  1

  442

  Northamptonshire

  298

  1

  299

  245

  1

  246

  Northumberland

  256

  —

  256

  159

  1

  160

  Nottinghamshire

  574

  —

  574

  329

  2

  331

  Oxfordshire1

  —

  —

  199

  —

  —

  271

  Shropshire

  205

  —

  205

  262

  3

  265

  Isle of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  34

  Somerset

  145

  —

  145

  382

  —

  382

  Staffordshire

  465

  —

  465

  386

  —

  386

  Suffolk

  221

  —

  221

  399

  2

  401

  Surrey

  697

  —

  697

  —

  —

  120

  East Sussex1

  —

  —

  395

  —

  —

  239

  West Sussex

  332

  —

  332

  314

  2

  316

  Warwickshire

  324

  1

  325

  218

  —

  218

  Isle of Wight

  49

  —

  49

  161

  2

  164

  Wiltshire

  183

  1

  184

  297

  1

  298

  North Yorkshire

  403

  —

  403

  409

  2

  411

  Total

  11,860

  10

  16,009

  9,958

  48

  12,597

  Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  Greater Manchester

  2,201

  2

  2,203

  40

  —

  40

  Merseyside

  1,400

  1

  1,401

  9

  1

  10

  Tyne and Wear

  1,085

  —

  1,085

  32

  —

  32

  West Midlands

  2,095

  1

  2,096

  13

  —

  13

  South Yorkshire

  1,012

  —

  1,012

  129

  —

  129

  West Yorkshire

  1,967

  2

  1,969

  241

  1

  242

  London

  6,329

  47

  6,376

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16,089

  53

  16,142

  464

  2

  466

  Total

  27,949

  63

  32,151

  10,422

  50

  13,063

  1 Totals only are shown for these authorities as they do not record the gender of their employees.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire brigades have yet to provide full A26 specification firefighting uniforms to all(a) whole-time and (b) retained firefighters; and if he will give the timescale for issue to (a) and (b) and the estimated cost for each fire authority.

  Mr. John Patten
  The purchase of firefighters' uniforms is a matter entirely for fire authorities. A recent survey indicated that 33 fire brigades in England and Wales issue firefighting tunics providing protection to specification A26.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce regulations to ensure that cars are designed to better standards in respect of their vulnerability to theft.
  212
  Mr. Chope
  My Department is pressing for the adoption, as a European Community directive, of requirements for mechanical locking systems in passenger cars, as contained in British Standard AU 209 part 1. We are also supporting an international standard on motor vehicle alarms which could when completed form the basis of another EC directive. We hope to incorporate the provisions of such directives in national regulations at the earliest opportunity. In addition, we are pressing vehicle manufacturers to improve car security by voluntary means without waiting for regulation. During national crime prevention week we are emphasising that there is ample scope for improvement here.

  Public Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to improve the safety of mainline railway stations in the light of recent terrorist bomb attacks;
  213
  (2) if he will introduce measures to make the physical environment of coach, bus and railway stations safer in the event of terrorist bomb attacks.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is responsible for the safety of mainline railway stations, and has taken a number of steps to improve security measures following the explosion at Victoria. These include a heightened police presence, the withdrawal of left luggage locker facilities, removal of litter bins, sealing of letter boxes and more regular cleaning of station concourses. Security at bus and coach stations is the responsibility of the owner and operators, and increased security measures again include a heightened police presence. Continuing vigilance by both staff and passengers is also vital, and regular reminders are issued by operators about suspicious packages.

  Vehicle Safety and Security
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce regulations to improve the safety and security of vehicles by stipulating higher standards of glass in cars.

  Mr. Chope
  A proposal for a European Community directive which requires windscreens to be made of laminated glass is being considered in the Council of Ministers. If this is adopted, it will be included in our national type approval requirements for new vehicle models and will eventually apply to all new vehicles.

  Work is in hand for a British standards code of practice on windscreen glass repair which may be incorporated into the MOT test.

  Although laminated glass may improve vehicle security, we are not intending to require it for other windows because it can increase the risk of entrapment in a vehicle following an accident. We are, however, pressing for agreement in the European Community on other measures for improving vehicle security.

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether his Department makes comparisons of accident statistics on lit and unlit sections of Britain's motorways;

  (2) what recent studies his Department has engaged in regarding the effect on accident statistics of lighting Britain's motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  A study by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory "Light on Motorway Accident Rates" was published in 1987. Accident statistics are continually monitored, including comparisons of lit and unlit sections of motorways.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received over the past three years in support of the lighting of Britain's motorway networks.

  Mr. Chope
  Those who have made representations over the past three years include the National Chamber of Trade, the editor of the Sunday Mercury, various Members of Parliament, a small number of police authorities and individual members of the public. We also receive representations against further lighting of the motorway network from other interested parties.

  A14
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to let the contract for each of the remaining stages of the A14 in Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Chope
  All remaining contracts are programmed to be let by the end of the year.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if pedal cyclists are part of the London area transport survey currently being undertaken by his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. Pedal cyclists are being covered in both major components of the 1991 London area transport survey. The household survey includes questions about the ownership of cycles and the use made of them and the roadside surveys treat cycles as a separate vehicle category.

  M1 (Tourist Signs)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many tourist signs are located on the M1 motorway between Leeds and exit 34; and which tourist attractions they relate to.

  Mr. Chope
  There are four tourist signs on the M1 motorway between Leeds and exit 34; two northbound and two southbound at junction 38, relating to the Yorkshire sculpture park.

  Archway Road, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many properties on the line of the abandoned Al Archway road widening scheme are owned by his Department; and what plans he has to sell them.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 16 April 1991]: The Department owns 54 dwellings including some flats and 24 business premises. We are currently considering a proposal from the Archway Road tenants association for the purchase of the residential units. We are also arranging to dispose of the business premises as soon as possible.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) by what date at the rate currently envisaged for 1992 under the current assumptions indicated in the oral statement by the Minister of State,Official Report, 14 January, column 644, payment for the Severn bridge will be completed; and what annual toll income would be in the final year at constant prices;

  (2) on the basis of current assumptions about traffic growth on the second Severn bridge and toll levels for 1992 indicated in the oral statement by the Minister of State on 14 January, Official Report, column 644, what at constant prices, is the forecast annual income from tolls for each year from 1992 until the bridge is paid for.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his answer, 15 April 1991, c. 2–3]: The costs of the two Severn bridges, including the outstanding deficit on the existing Severn bridge, are due to be paid by the end of the concessionaire's tolling period.

  215
  If the concession begins on 1 January 1992, then, on the basis of the concessionaire's traffic forecasts and the tolling regime for 1992 and subsequent years set out in the Severn Bridges Bill, it would end on 30 June 2013.

  On these assumptions, the concessionaire's forecast toll revenues, in 1989 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1992

  29·6

  1993

  32·4

  1994

  35·4

  1995

  38·8

  1996

  39·7

  1997

  40·6

  1998

  41·6

  1999

  42·6

  2000

  43·7

  2001

  44·6

  2002

  45·6

  2003

  46·6

  2004

  47·6

  2005

  48·7

  2006

  49·7

  2007

  50·8

  2008

  518

  2009

  52·9

  2010

  54·0

  2011

  55·1

  2012

  562

  2013

  28·6

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Leicester Schools
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether he will make it his policy to collect data on the number of pupils attending schools in a different district from their home within the same local education authority;

  (2) what is his policy on securing equitable funding arrangements for schools such as Bushloe high school, Wigston Magna, Leicestershire which draw a high proportion of pupils from outside their catchment areas;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of Leicestershire county council's formula for funding schools on the loss of teachers for schools such as Bushloe high school in the Oadby and Wigston area; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what representations he has received about the effect of local management of schools on the number of teachers at Bushloe high school, Wigston Magna, Leicestershire;

  (5) if he will now list the budget allocation per unit for local management of schools in (a) Wigston, (b) South Wigston and (c) Oadby; what is the average budget allocation per unit for schools in the city of Leicester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  I refer my hon. Friend to my replies of 22 March and 17 April,Official Report, columns 234 and 137. Under local management, schools are funded principally on the basis of the numbers and ages of pupils on roll. Schools are not penalised for attracting pupils from outside the home local education authority; they receive funds in respect of those pupils through the LMS formula. In this way pupils of the same age are funded at the same level, irrespective of where they live and which school they attend within the authority.
  216
  We have received a small number of representations from schools in Leicestershire which serve the 10 to 14 age range, including Bushloe high school.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend to explain the situation in more detail.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning opting out of schools in the Oadby, Wigston and South Wigston areas in view of the underfunding of schools which draw up to a quarter of their pupils from outside their catchment areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor received a number of representations from schools in these areas, some of which referred to the possibility of seeking grant-maintained status.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is being undertaken into the effect of the summer heat in Kuwait turning oil lakes into tar, hampering plans to suck oil into tankers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None of the research councils is currently undertaking any research in this area.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the official visits he has made since his appointment to schools, sixth-form colleges, further education colleges, univer-sities, polytechnics and other educational establishments, with the dates, name of the establishment, its area and the purpose of the visits, in each case.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My official visits have been as follows:

  26 November 1990:

  Ribston Hall GM Grammar school (Gloucestershire)

  30 January 1991:

  Stockingford First school

  Stockingford Middle school

  Alderman Smith High school (Warwickshire)

  8 April 1991:

  The Open University (Buckinghamshire)

  I have also made informal and political visits to universities and colleges, and attended conferences and meetings with teachers and lecturers.

  Planned official visits to LEA-maintained schools in Gloucestershire and Lancashire were cancelled at a late stage due to urgent ministerial business. My plans before the end of the summer term include visits to maintained schools and FE colleges in the following local education authorities: Cambridgeshire, Camden, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Liverpool, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Sheffield; to two GM schools; to one CTC; to colleges of the universities of Oxford and London, and to the university of Nottingham; and to the polytechnics of Liverpool and Sheffield.

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department plan to hold meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and on what dates such meetings will take place.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend and the Minister for Sport are due to meet the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 24 April to discuss the establishment of a Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I envisage discussing the foundation with a variety of sports organisations over the coming months.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department have held meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and on what dates such meetings took place.

  Mr. Fallon
  Officials from the Department of Education and Science met officials from Her Majesty's Treasury on 21 March to discuss the establishment of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Officials have also spoken, informally, to a number of sporting organisations.

  Birmingham City Action Team
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many meetings of the Birmingham city action team in 1990 and the first three months of 1991 were attended by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I attended the meetings on 12 March 1990 and 30 January 1991 to agree the annual action plan.

  FE Lecturers
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the information provided in his answer of 18 December 1989,Official Report, columns 35–36, to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) relating to the pay received by further education lecturers.

  Mr. Eggar
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on electricity prices.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Electricity prices are a matter for the regional electricity companies subject to their statutory and licence requirements.

  Onshore Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his future plans for onshore petroleum licensing; and if he will make a statement.
  218
  Mr. Wakeham
  The Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 981) were laid before the House today. These regulations are in substantially the same form as the previous regulations which provide for separate licences to cover the conduct of each of the exploration, appraisal and development stages. Operations under the licences are subject to the normal planning process. The new regulations, which follow discussions with the industry, incorporate a number of small changes and are designed to facilitate the conduct of operations. They will come into force on 9 May and will govern the arrangements for the next onshore licensing round.

  As soon as possible, I will publish in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes a formal announcement giving the detailed financial terms for new landward licences and the basis on which awards will be made. The notice will invite applications for a new round of landward exploration licensing.

  In parallel with the new regulations, I will be making arrangements allowing holders of old-style production licences, which covered exploration, appraisal and development activities, to transfer the exploration acreage in these licences to the new style of exploration licences.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the Government buildings currently using combined heat and power technology.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Office of Electricity Regulation—OFFER—is in the process of compiling a database of CHP projects operating in Great Britain which will include the Government estate. The information requested by the hon. Member will start to become available when the OFFER database becomes operational this autumn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has supplied a union flag to the vehicle inspection and driving test centre, Hamiltonsbawn road, Armagh; if the centre has been advised of the dates on which the union flag is to be flown; why no union flag was flown at these premises on St. Patrick's day and on Easter day; what steps are being taken to arrange for the union flag to be flown on 12 July; and if he will make a statement about future arrangements to fly the union flag at these premises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A union flag has been supplied to the vehicle inspection and driving test centre, Hamiltonsbawn road, Armagh and the centre has been advised of the prescribed days on which the union flag is to be flown. The union flag was not flown on St. Patrick's day and Easter Sunday due to an oversight by the staff at the centre. This oversight has been drawn to the attention of the staff and they have been instructed to ensure that the union flag is flown on all appropriate dates.

  Firefighters
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many operational(a) men and (b) women firefighters are employed in each fire authority/ FCDA in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland which serves the whole of the province employs 1,792 male and one female firefighters.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from Mr. James Nichol, lawyer for Mr. Colin Wallace.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received no representations from Mr. Nichol, and have no reason to anticipate any.

  Bowbelle
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to ensure that a decision is taken this week as to whether to proceed with the prosecution of the skipper of the dredger the Bowbelle.

  The Attorney-General
  The decision whether to seek a re-trial rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions; he is reviewing the case. His decision will be taken with the maximum expedition consistent with thorough consideration. I have drawn the hon. Member's concern to his attention.

  Rape
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the training provided to judges to enable them to deal adequately with rape cases.

  The Attorney-General
  The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for the provision of training and information for judges. The policy with regard to the proper conduct of trials and appropriate levels of sentence in the Crown Court are laid down in decisions of the Court of Appeal criminal division.

  The board has produced guidance for trial judges in summing up to juries and a volume of sentencing guidelines, which includes sentences for rape. Copies have been distributed to each judge.

  At seminars run by the board judges are reminded that it is their duty to be sensitive to the difficulties of all those who come to court, including complainants in cases of alleged rape or other sexual assaults, who are often under considerable strain and may suffer distress whilst giving evidence.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he contemplates any action against British companies named by the US Government who have allegedly been trading in weapons with the Iraqi Government.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 April by the Secretary of State for 220
  Trade and Industry to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), Official Report, columns 30–31. The list published by the United States Department of the Treasury concerned a number of companies and individuals whom the director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control had determined to be owned or controlled by or to be acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of Iraq. I am informed that the US authorities have not alleged that those on the list have broken sanctions or controls on the export of arms. A very few cases concerning persons or companies in the United Kingdom where possible breaches of restrictions on exports to Iraq have come to light are being investigated by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Women Judges
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General how many women judges are currently appointed; and what was the percentage of women judges for each of the last 10 years appointed to the High Court and equivalent in criminal cases.

  The Attorney-General
  There are currently 22 women judges—4·3 per cent.—out of a total of 517 High Court and circuit judges. High Court and circuit judges are not generally assigned exclusively to criminal or civil work and most sit in the Crown Court at some time. Figures for appointments to the High Court and circuit bench over the last 10 years are as follows:

  Numbers appointed

  Women appointed

  Percentage

  1981

  23

  1

  4·3

  1982

  28

  —

  —

  1983

  31

  2

  6·5

  1984

  35

  —

  —

  1985

  35

  2

  5·7

  1986

  59

  3

  5·1

  1987

  29

  —

  —

  1988

  44

  1

  2·3

  1989

  39

  1

  2·6

  1990

  41

  4

  9–8

  11991

  15

  2

  13·3

  1 To 17 April.

  Judiciary
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals the Lord Chancellor has to improve the qualifications and training of the judiciary.

  The Attorney-General
  The Courts and Legal Services Act was considered and approved by both Houses prior to receiving Royal Assent on 1 November 1990. Section 71 and schedule 10 of that Act revised the qualifications for appointment to all levels of the judiciary. The new arrangements, which have effect from 1 January 1991, mean that higher judicial appointments are now open to solicitors as well as barristers who obtain the required qualifications, and posts are open generally to those who obtain the required rights of audience before the courts whether they are solicitors, barristers or otherwise qualified. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the qualifications for judicial appointment again in the near future. In addition, to ensure a well-qualified judiciary, appointments to part-time posts are normally made from candidates with standing and experience in the relevant field of law. In
  221
  making or recommending appointments to a full-time judicial post the Lord Chancellor normally requires the candidate to have served in a similar post in a part-time capacity. Both before and during this part-time service the Lord Chancellor assesses the candidate's work and abilities to establish his or her competence and suitability for judicial posts.

  The training of newly appointed judicial officers and the provisions of continued judicial studies for the experienced judiciary is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. Originally the training provided by the board was confined to the criminal field but in recent years its role has been extended to cover judicial studies in the civil and family jurisdictions and also the stipendiary magistrates and certain legal chairmen and members of tribunals.

  In addition to its regular programme of induction courses and refresher seminars the board organises training in respect of new legislation, such as the Children Act and on specialist subjects such as fraud.

  Despite the fact that the volume and range of training provided by the board has already increased significantly improvements will continue to be made. The content and format of seminars will be reviewed regularly as will the range of topics covered. The publications produced by the board are also being revised and consideration is being given to issuing further volumes and other material such as video or audio tapes.

  The board and the four committees have produced a strategy document to cover the next five years. It will be included in the Judicial Studies Board report which will be published during autumn 1991.

  Conciliation Services
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Attorney-General what financial support the Lord Chancellor's Department plans to give for the provision of conciliation services.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have no immediate plans to provide financial support for conciliation services. The Government are presently reviewing all aspects of divorce reform and conciliation is under consideration as part of that review.

EMPLOYMENT

  Gas Surge (Royston)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set up a public inquiry into the gas surge in Royston on 8 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are currently investigating the gas incident on 8 March in Royston. I do not propose to set up a public inquiry since this would be unlikely to identify any causes or contributory factors which will not be identified by the HSE investigation. The results of HSE's investigation will be published.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the actions he has taken since the gas surge in Royston on 8 March in order to prevent a recurrence of this event.

  Mr. Jackson
  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are carrying out a full investigation into the gas 222
  incident at Royston on 8 March. The HSE will decide what action, if any, is appropriate when the investigation is completed.

  I understand that British Gas has replaced approximately 4,000 m of pipeline as a result of the incident.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the dates of the contacts he has had, whether by telephone, letter or meetings, on the lessons of the gas surge in Royston on 8 March with(a) Royston town council and (b) British Gas.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive has had contact on the following dates with Royston town council and British Gas about the gas incident in Royston on 8 March:

  (a) Contact with Royston Town Council

  (b) Contact with British Gas

  15 March

  11 March

  21 March

  12 March

  25 March

  27 March

  28 March

  11 April

  10 April 1991

  12 April

  16 April 1991

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will visit Royston as part of his assessment of the implications of the gas surge on 8 March.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive is keeping me informed of progress with its investigation into the gas incident in Royston on 8 March. I have no plans to visit Royston.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Auditors
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received reports from the Director General of Fair Trading under part II of the Companies Act 1989 on the effect on competition of the rules and guidance of qualifying and supervisory bodies for auditors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes. The director general has submitted reports on the rules and guidance of all the applicants for recognition under part II of the Companies Act 1989, and I have placed copies of his reports in the Library. Further copies can be obtained from his office. Copies of the applications can be obtained from the applicants on request.

  The director general discerns no significant anticompetitive effects in the rules and guidance of the qualifying bodies which have applied for recognition. He finds that a number of rules of some of the supervisory body applicants relating to the ownership and control of audit firms are likely to restrict or distort competition to a significant extent.

  I would welcome comments on the director general's findings, and in particular on whether the rules he finds anticompetitive are nevertheless reasonably justifiable having regard to the purpose of part II of the 1989 Act. I should be grateful if any comments reached me by 15 May. Comments on any other aspects of the applications made under part II should also reach the Department by that date.

  Liverpool Polytechnic
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from Liverpool polytechnic about it wrongly being on the United States Treasury list of blacklisted organisations; what action his Department has taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 April 1991]: Liverpool polytechnic has made a number of approaches to my Department. As a result, the British embassy in Washington has raised the matter of the inclusion of the polytechnic's name in the United States Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control list of "specially designated nationals".

WALES

  Education (Laboratory Technicians)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many laboratory technicians are employed in each local education authority in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In September 1990 the number of laboratory technicians employed in secondary schools was as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Clwyd

  61

  42

  103

  Dyfed

  61

  28

  89

  Gwent

  81

  22

  103

  Gwynedd

  30

  12

  42

  Mid Glamorgan

  116

  19

  135

  Powys

  25

  10

  35

  South Glamorgan

  69

  25

  94

  West Glamorgan

  93

  13

  106

  Schools (Absenteeism)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on absenteeism in(a) primary schools and (b) high schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is important to tackle truancy more vigorously to ensure that the national curriculum and other education reforms benefit all pupils. My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State of Wales have this week issued for consultation a draft circular on school attendance, together with draft regulations about pupil registration and the publication of information about rates of attendance. We expect schools to give the highest priority to maximising rates of attendance, and to work with parents, local education authorities and others to achieve that objective.

  Rent Officers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of processing applications under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988 by the rent officer service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I estimate that the average cost of each application is about £25.
  224
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications the rent officer service in Wales is handling under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  During the year ended February 1991 the rent officer service received an average of 2,670 cases per month under section 121 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiative he has taken, for each local education authority in Wales, individually, to enable them to prepare their educational systems for the single European market in 1992.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is for local education authorities to prepare programmes to meet changing needs and policies. I understand that the Welsh Joint Education Committee is offering active and specific assistance to LEAs in Wales and through them to all their education institutions to help them develop their responses to European Community initiatives. In addition, the Department is investigating the need for a unit to provide advice and guidance about European Community education programmes for further and higher education institutions in the Principality.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he plans for each of the local education authorities in Wales individually, to enable them to obtain more (i) foreign language teachers and (ii) Welsh teachers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have introduced a series of measures designed to improve the supply of modern foreign language teachers and teachers of Welsh. These include:

  i. adding modern foreign languages and Welsh to the shortage subject Trainee Teacher Bursary Scheme for students entering eligible courses in the autumn of 1990. At the same time the value of the bursary was increased to £1,500;

  ii. making £134,000 available under the Grants for Education Support and Training programme (GEST) to support Articled Teacher schemes. Clwyd is the one Local Education Authority in Wales to apply for support and the school-based training scheme will aim to attract graduates in shortage areas identified by the authority which include modern foreign languages and Welsh;

  iii. approving, also under the GEST programme, local authority expenditure of some £228,000 in 1991–92 on recruitment measures which will seek to attract former teachers and mature entrants to teaching. Each scheme will seek to address local recruitment need including teachers of modern languages and Welsh where these are identified as shortage areas;

  iv. investing heavily in in-service training to increase the supply of Welsh language teachers. In 1990–91 we made available £1 million to help existing teachers of other subjects to gain the necessary expertise to teach Welsh as well. For 1991–92, £1.8 million is to be spent on such training. In addition students at initial teacher training institutions in Wales will have the opportunity to learn the language while they are training to become primary school teachers.

  Queensferry Bypass (Fencing)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the safety of the boundary fencing adjacent to the Brossley housing estate, Garden City and the A494 Queensferry bypass; and if he will inspect the fencing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is no trunk road boundary fencing adjacent to the Brossley housing estate. It was a condition of the planning consent imposed on the developer of the Brossley housing estate that a solid barrier not less than 4ft 6in. high must be erected along the existing trunk road frontage of the site. This fence has nver been erected. Fences exist at the top of the embankments on each side of the A494 trunk road. These have been inspected and temporary repairs effected.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will repair deficient fencing on the A494 Queensferry bypass where it borders the Garden City Brossley estate.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The agent authority, Clwyd county council, has effected temporary repairs to the fencing which lies within the highway at this location.

  Fell Running
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he plans to take to ensure that safety is a first priority in all future organised fell-running events in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the organisers of future fell-running events.

ENVIRONMENT

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to issue his draft guidance to local authorities on renewable energy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 28 March,Official Report, columns 543–44.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to avoid smoke hampering aerial surveys in Kuwait.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any action that would be open to my right hon. Friend.

  Oil Well Fires
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of the extent to which sulphur dioxide from oil wells after they are lit is less toxic than the hydrogen sulphide produced from the same wells before ignition.
  226
  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 15 April 1991 at columns 65–66 and to the related documents which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Zoological Society of London
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has launched an internal investigation into the leaking of correspondence between his Department and the Zoological Society of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The correspondence was not leaked from my Department. We had never seen the zoo's internal memorandum quoted in the press.

  Zoos
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest information he holds regarding figures for annual public subsidies to zoos by EC nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Such information is not collected by the Department.

  Work on Government Offices
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet received the advice commissioned from Arup Associates on possible remedial work on Government offices at 2 Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Arup Associates has now provided its advice on possible remedial work on Government offices at 2 Marsham street. The report now needs to be studied in relation to the accommodation requirements of the two Departments which currently occupy the building and in the context of overall future demand for Government offices in central London. Until this further work has been carried out, it would not be sensible to attempt to take investment decisions in respect of the building at 2 Marsham street alone.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the consultation paper, announced in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", Cm. 1200, on amendments to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

  Sir George Young
  A consultation paper has been issued today, for circulation in England, Scotland and Wales. The document puts forward a number of suggested improvements, including clarifying the definition of damage to an ancient monument and making it an offence to remove objects from scheduled sites. Copies of the document have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses—consultees have two months within which to respond. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will be consulting similarly.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Hay ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings each local authority has sold under the right-to-buy legislation or voluntarily since April 1979; and what percentage of the total local authority stock they represent.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have placed in the Library a table giving available information on local authority sales up to December 1990. It shows year by year information for each authority since 1985–86 together with cumulative figures since April 1979 and the proportion of their stock sold since April 1979.

  Drought Orders
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to modify his direction to water companies specifying the uses of water which may be restricted by means of drought orders made under section 131 of the Water Act 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, have today given a fresh direction, the Drought Direction 1991, to water companies under section 131 (4)(b) of the 1989 Act. The direction prescribes the uses of water which a company may be authorised to prohibit or limit under Drought Orders made by the Secretary of State.

  The 1991 direction replaces the Drought Direction 1989, with the following modifications:

  (a) the watering of all gardens (other than market gardens), together with landscaped areas such as road verges, may now be restricted (previously, only the watering of ornamental gardens or lawns was specified);

  (b) the watering of all surfaces used for sport or recreation, including artificial surfaces, may now be restricted;

  (c) the filling of privately owned pools designed for use in a medical treatment programme, or requiring to be filled during construction as a necessary part of the construction process, is now exempt from restrictions;

  (d) the manual cleaning of windows is now exempt from restrictions.

  Once a Drought Order has been made, its implementation and enforcement are the responsibility of the relevant water company. I am placing a copy of the Drought Direction 1991 in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing, for each financial year from 1978–79 to 1990–91 inclusive, in constant price terms(a) total grants from central Government to local government, (b) total housing benefit, or its predecessors, rent and rate rebates, (c) other social security benefits paid in respect of rates or the community charge and (d) the total of the above support.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 16 April 1991]: The available information is as follows:
  228

  Government grants at 1989–90 prices1

  Rent rebates at 1989–90 prices

  Rent allowances at 1989–90 prices

  Rate/community charge rebates at 1989–90 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  20,409

  2,208

  755

  1,545

  1985–86

  19,480

  2,260

  868

  1,621

  1986–87

  20,315

  2,289

  1,006

  1,725

  1987–88

  20,730

  2,250

  1,003

  1,754

  1988–89

  19,189

  2,150

  949

  1,368

  1989–90

  18,719

  2,147

  1,023

  1,299

  1990–91

  19,603

  2,178

  1,262

  1,785

  1 Government grants consisting of rate/revenue support grant, specific grants and capital grants. These include rent rebates, rent allowances and rate/community charge rebates.

  Sources: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93 (Cm. 1021). Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993–94 (Cm. 1520).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Food Production
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the third world countries receiving funding and technical cooperation from the United Kingdom in order to improve technologies in the production of safe and good quality food.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Third world countries currently receiving United Kingdom funding and technical co-operation for improving the safety and quality of the food they produce are listed below. The Natural Resources Institute at Chatham, through its ODA-funded food sciences and crop utilisation programmes, plays a leading role in this field of assistance. Many of the other research and development programmes on renewable natural resources funded by ODA, including its suppport for the international agricultural research centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, also contribute to the quality of food products.

  Bangladesh

  Mozambique

  Bolivia

  Nigeria

  Brazil

  Pakistan

  Cote dTvoire

  Philippines

  Dominica

  St. Helena

  Ecuador

  St. Kitts/Nevis

  Egypt

  St. Lucia

  Ethiopia

  St. Vincent

  Ghana

  Solomon Islands

  Honduras

  Sri Lanka

  India

  Tanzania

  Indonesia

  Thailand

  Jamaica

  Uganda

  Kenya

  Yemen

  Madagascar

  Zaire

  Mali

  Zambia

  Malawi

  Zimbabwe

  Montserrat

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution his Department is making to the preparations to the United Nations conference on the environment and development which is due to be held in Brazil in 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to work to make the conference a success. ODA and diplomatic wing officials
  229
  played a full part in the second meeting of the preparatory committee for the conference in Geneva in March and will continue to do so at future meetings. We have offered £32,000 to the voluntary fund established to finance participation by developing countries in the preparations for the conference. We are helping finance the preparation of national reports from Indonesia, Pakistan and Zimbabwe for the conference. Together with the Department of Trade and Industry we have financed a study on technology transfer to help developing countries address environmental problems, with a focus on global warming.

  Development Aid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much United Kingdom development aid was distributed to(a) the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission, (b) Ethiopian church organisations and (c) the Ethiopian Red Cross (i) last year and (ii) in the current year; what proportion of total aid that represents for each; amd what are the reasons for the extent of the distribution to each.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since the beginning of 1990 we have committed more than £30 million in humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia. Our assistance is channelled through international and British relief agencies, who work closely with Ethiopian non-governmental organisa-tions, including churches and other bodies. Our bilateral Government-to-Government technical co-operation pro-gramme is worth about £3 million a year and is concentrated on education and training, agriculture, and disaster prevention and preparedness.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any communication with the Turkish Cypriots about the Cypriot Government's application for Cyprus to join the European Community; if he supports the application; and what progress has been made by this application.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Cyprus applied to join the EC in July 1990. The Commission is producing an opinion on the application, which will be submitted to the member states for their consideration.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Cypriot Government have accepted United Nations resolution 649 calling for a bizonal federal Cyprus; when the United Nations approved resolution 649; and if he will make a statement on political progress within the island of Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UN Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the intercommunal dispute in Cyprus continue with our full support. The way forward is mapped out in UN Security Council resolution 649 of 12 March 1990, which both communities have accepted.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 230
  the United Kingdom Government have received as a guarantor power concerning the purchase of arms by the Government of Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are aware of Turkish and Turkish Cypriot concern at the purchase of arms by the Government of Cyprus. It is our long-standing policy to sell weapons neither to the Greek Cypriot National Guard nor to the Turkish Cypriot armed forces.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Saudi Government about the volume of paperwork involved before equipment can be sent to fight fires in Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had no discussions with the Saudi Government on this subject.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Government of Argentina on the recent review of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Antarctica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have put proposals arising from our review of United Kingdom policy to all Antarctic treaty consultative parties, including Argentina, for their consideration in advance of the special consultative meeting in Madrid, starting on 22 April.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with Norway on the recent review of Government policy towards Antarctica.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have put proposals arising from our review of policy to all Antarctic treaty consultative parties, including Norway, for their consideration in advance of the special consultative meeting in Madrid starting on 22 April.

  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources will be required to finance the measures necessary to enable Britain to conform to the UN convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not anticipate that any extra resources will be required to meet the United Kingdom obligations under the convention.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in legislation he proposes to enable Britain to conform to the UN convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. With the reservations envisaged in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 21 March at column 192–3 we are satisfied that the United Kingdom mainland will be able to meet its obligations under the convention.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his
  231
  Department has yet held consultations on the manner in which it will monitor the requirements of the UN convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. After ratification the Department of Health will co-ordinate the United Kingdom's initial report with other home Departments.

  European Political Union
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 15 April.

  Mr. Hurd
  The ministerial meeting of the intergovernmental conference on political union on 15 April, attended by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, discussed Presidency proposals on a common foreign and security policy and the powers of the European Parliament.

  In discussion of a common foreign and security policy my hon. Friend the Minister of State re-stated our arguments, as set out in my answer to the House on 6 March 1991 at column 203, for strengthening co-operation among the Twelve on foreign and security policy issues and for strengthening the Western European Union (WEU) as a bridge between NATO and the Twelve. There continues to be a range of views among other member states on this and related issues.

  A range of views was expressed too on the Presidency proposals for strengthening the European Parliament's role in the legislative procedure through the introduction of "co-decision" procedures. Several members states, like the United Kingdom, were unable to accept the proposals.

  Ministers will continue discussion of both these subjects at future meetings of special representatives and of Ministers. These meetings will also consider the composite text of all proposed Treaty amendments now circulated by the Presidency.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 April.

  Mr. Hurd
  A meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council took place in Luxembourg on 15 April. My hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reviewed the progress of the EC/EFTA negotiations on a European economic area, which will extend the internal market to the EFTA countries. The Council instructed the Committee of Permanent Representatives to continue work on the detailed issues and agreed to propose to EFTA a joint EC/EFTA ministerial meeting on 13 May.

  The Commission briefed the Council about the negotiations for association agreements between the European Community and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Council declared its readiness to adopt a flexible approach in the negotiations, particularly on trade access, with a view to concluding them as soon as possible.

  The Council discussed a draft EC/Japan declaration and agreed that further work was necessary before the draft could be passed to the Japanese. It also considered
  232
  which countries should participate in the European energy charter and agreed to re-examine the issue on 15 May.

  At the request of the United Kingdom, Ministers discussed a package of aid from the Community and member states to help those suffering famine in Africa. They agreed on the need for emergency aid and asked the Commission to make proposals urgently.

  Ministers also discussed disbursement of the 150 mecu humanitarian assistance for Iraqi refugees agreed at the Special European Council of 8 April. They invited the President of the Council to discuss with the United Nations Secretary-General how Saddam Hussein could be held to account for his actions.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of all exports of ivory from Hong Kong to Argentina in the last two years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 March 1991]: According to the Hong Kong authorities export licensing records, no commercial exports of ivory to Argentina have been authorised in the last two years.

THE ARTS

  Library Books
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what average amount per head of population has been spent on library books in the county of Durham each year since 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  Expenditure in the county of Durham per head of population has risen over the past four years as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  0·69

  1987–88

  0·85

  1988–89

  0·90

  1989–90

  1·04

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department have held meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the dates on which such meetings took place;

  (2) if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department plan to hold meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the dates on which such meetings will take place.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been in touch with ministerial colleagues and others with an interest in the proposed foundation. My Department will continue to be closely involved in taking this forward.

HEALTH

  Adoption
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his officials' recent visit to Romania concerning inter-country adoption.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 26 March at columns 763–64. A team of Home Office and Department of Health officials visited Bucharest in November 1990 to discuss further how to co-ordinate help and facilitate procedures for British couples who wish to adopt Romanian children. We continue to be in regular contact with the Romanian authorities.

  Sickle Cell Disorders
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to introduce universal screening of new-born babies for sickle cell disorders and to develop national policies on pain control hospital care and the prevention of crises in people having sickle cell disorders.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is important that infants affected by sickle cell disease are identified at an early stage so that they can receive appropriate treatment. Screening services are generally offered to those members of the population most likely to be affected—those orginating from Africa, the Mediterranean or middle east. This disease is rare in the indigenous population. It would therefore be unreasonable to screen all new-born babies for the disorder.

  In 1988 the Department introduced haemoglobi-nopathy cards which are given to patients with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia with the aim of ensuring that, in an emergency, their condition is identified and that they receive appropriate treatment. The decision on what measures are necessary to control pain and prevent crises is for the individual doctor to make, taking into account his knowledge of the patient and the particular circumstances of the episode. This is a matter of clinical judgment.

  Prestwich Hospital, Salford
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the patients of Pinfold, Troy and Tottington wards at Prestwich hospital, Salford, will be evacuated, as advised by the health advisory service/social services inspectorate in its report dated October 1990, No. (90) MI/E.12.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 15 April at column 80.

  Pharmacists (Advice)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the written advice of his Department to retail pharmacists regarding the methods of disposal for unwanted medicines and poisons returned to them by their customers.
  234
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Advice is given by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to community pharmacists on the disposal of returned medicines. The Department has not issued any written advice.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to change the arrangements under which medical students have access to national health service patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Medical students have always undertaken clinical work in hospitals, and this forms an essential part of their training. There are also long-standing arrangements under which final year students may assist in hospitals when a house officer is on leave. Following consultation with health authorities, the General Medical Council, the medical profession and the universities, revised guidance has been issued clarifying the circumstances in which students may have access, under close supervision, to hospital patients. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's negotiations to date with the tobacco industry on the control of tobacco advertising.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to the reply 11 March 1991: I am pleased to announce that the Health Departments and the industry have reached agreement in principle on a revised voluntary agreement for the next three years on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. The new agreement will be published and come into force in the next few weeks when final drafting has been completed and the agreement has been approved under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

  In a major addition to the voluntary agreement, the industry has agreed to remove 50 per cent. of shopfront advertising over five years. The change will start once the agreement has been concluded and will apply to all external permanent advertising material on shops. In making this reduction, the industry will act in consultation with the retail trade; it will seek to apply the reduction evenly over time by type of sign and by geographic location; priority will be given to reducing the number of those permanent advertising signs on shops clearly visible from schools; the reductions will be validated annually by independent audit; the results of the audit will be submitted to the monitoring committee and will appear in the committee's annual report.

  A major change in the agreement is that from 1 July all external signs on shops will carry a health warning; under the existing agreement signs erected before 1983 have not been required to carry a health warning and this has caused confusion to the public and has been commented on in reports of the monitoring committee.

  The new agreement will also extend the present ban on poster advertising which is visible from schools to children's playgrounds.

  Other parts of the existing voluntary agreement will also be updated and anomalies, which have come to notice through the reports of the monitoring committee, will be removed.
  235
  I am also pleased to announce that, following the resignation of Sir Peter Lazarus as chairman of the monitoring committee, the Government with the agreement of the industry, have appointed Sir John Blelloch, formerly permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, to be the new chairman of the committee.

  The Government welcome these steps to maintain and develop the system of voluntary agreements, to which they remain committed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the social security benefits available to carers, and what steps his Department is taking to publicise these benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 27 March 1991 at column 448.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number and proportion of people claiming unemployment benefit who were disqualified or disallowed for availability or voluntary unemployment reaons and, because they were not eligible for income support, received no benefit, for May 1989 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the numbers of unemployed claimants and the decisions of adjudication officers where the question of availability or voluntary unemployment arises, is in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants" and "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Decisions of Adjudication Officers", copies of which are in the Library. Figures as to the number and proportion of people disqualified or disallowed for receiving unemployment benefit who were not entitled to income support are not available.

  Claimants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people made claims for(a) income support only, (b) unemployment benefit only and (c) income support and unemployment benefit for each quarter since the beginning of 1987; and what were the proportions and numbers in each quarter whose claims were disallowed, disqualified or suspended for (i) non-availability, (ii) refusal of employment and neglect to avail, (iii) restricted availability, (iv) not actively seeking work and (v) other reasons.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the numbers of unemployed people claiming benefit and the decisions of adjudication officers where those claims were disallowed, is in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants" and "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Decisions of Adjudication Officers", copies of which are in the Library. No information is available on the total number of claims suspended or the proportion of income support claims which resulted in a disallowance.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for(a) unemployment benefit
  236
  only; ((b) income support only and (c) both income support and unemployment benefit were made by unemployed people for each quarter from the beginning of 1987 to date.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and what number of claimants on the unemployment register are claiming income support as(a) incapable of work, (b) lone parents, (c) retired, (d) aged 60 years and over and (e) studying.

  Mr. Jack
  Claimants who are incapable of work or retired are not on the unemployed register. Information on those aged 60 and over who choose to register is in "Unemployment Benefit Statistics—Half-yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants", a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not available as to the number of lone parents or those who are studying.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the incorporation of attendance allowance into disability living allowance will result in any reduction of the number of people currently qualifying for attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There will be no reduction in the number of people receiving the existing rates of benefit. Recipients of attendance allowance who are over the age of 65 will continue to receive that benefit after April 1992, and those who are under 65 will be transferred automatically to the corresponding rate of the care component of the new disability living allowance.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether loans can be paid from the discretionary social fund to applicants claiming income support while they are waiting for seven days to receive payment of income support paid in arrears; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. Crisis loans may be paid from the social fund to people who are awaiting their first payment of income support, and who are facing a serious risk to their health or safety. In 1989–90, a total of 191,000 such awards were made, at a total cost of £6·2 million. Over 90 per cent. of crisis loan applications are successful.

  Source: Secretary of State's Annual Report on the Social Fund, 1989–90.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  River Severn
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take following the representations he has received on the problems of pollution and flooding along the River Severn.

  Mr. Curry
  Flood and tidal defences along the River Severn are kept under constant review by the National
  237
  Rivers Authority and the Department. As a result of flooding from the River Severn, the Severn Trent region of the NRA which is responsible for the promotion of flood defence work along the river, has instigated investigations in the form of mathematical and physical modelling, and have included defence works in their forward programme of work to be submitted to the Department for grant aid.

  The Ministry is grant-aiding a comprehensive scheme to raise flood walls and embankments on the River Severn, below Gloucester. Following the tidal flooding in February 1990, and additional section of works is being added.

  Matters relating to the problems of pollution along the River Severn are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of fishing vessels held in port by the eight consecutive day rule in February and March in South Shields, Seahouses, Bridlington, Scarborough, Grimsby and Fleetwood.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  February 1991

  March 1991

  South Shields

  0

  0

  Seahouses

  0

  0

  Bridlington

  9

  5

  Scarborough

  5

  1

  Grimsby

  24

  4

  Fleetwood

  1

  1

  The reduction in March reflects the Government's success in securing a gear option for restricted vessels.

  Whale Conservation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to ensure that a policy of whale conservation is retained for the United Kingdom, other EC countries and other international bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have long been in the lead in pressing for the conservation of whales. The moratorium achieved under the International Whaling Commission is still in place after its review last year and the number of whales taken for scientific whaling purposes during the moratorium has been greatly reduced by the pressures of the IWC. Further, the European Community has prohibited trade in whale products. The Government will continue to work for the conservation of whales through all possible means.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a married couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in all taxes and national insurance, including local taxes and treating child benefit as a negative income tax, in 1978–79, 1989–90 and 1990–91.
  238
  Mr. Maples
  About 35 per cent. in 1978–79 and about 36 per cent. in 1989–90. Estimates including local taxes are not yet available for 1990–91.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses concerning reductions in corporation tax.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from small businesses and representative bodies. The overwhelming majority support the Budget measures.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the level of corporation tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received a number of representations.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of corporation tax in the United Kingdom; and what is the average rate in other European Community countries.

  Mr. Maude
  The main rate of corporation tax will be 34 per cent. for 1990 and 33 per cent. for 1991, down from 52 per cent. in 1979. The EC average, excluding the United Kingdom, for 1990 is 40·2 per cent. Germany's rate is 50 per cent.; Belgium's is 43 per cent. and France's is 34 per cent. Britain and Luxembourg now have the lowest main rate of corporation tax in the Community.

  Inflation
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the inflation rate for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1991.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Retail price inflation is expected to fall sharply in April, and to decline further thereafter to 4 per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1991.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the current rate of child benefit if uprated in line with inflation since 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  It would be £9·55. The increases this year in child benefit will raise the rate of the eldest eligible child by over 25 per cent.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over the increase in value added tax.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations over the increase in the rate of VAT.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on companies charging value added tax at 17·5 per cent. on goods and services supplied between 1 January 1991 and the date of his Budget statement; and if he will bring forward proposals to prevent companies from back-dating the increase in value added tax.
  239
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The normal rules for working out the date for VAT purposes—the tax point—apply when there is a change of rate. This entitles traders to apply the old rate—15 per cent.—to goods or services supplied before 1 April—the date from which the rate was increased to 17·5 per cent. Moreover, even where the issue of a tax invoice after 1 April would have created a tax point at the new rate, there is in existence a concession to the normal rules which allows traders to apply the old rate, as long as the goods or services were supplied prior to 1 April. There is therefore no question of the Government forcing companies to backdate the increase in VAT.

  Where companies do not take advantage of the concession available, perhaps because of administrative difficulties, this is a matter for their own commercial judgment, of course, taking account of relations with their customers.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised by charging value added tax at 17·5 per cent. on those goods and services which are at present exempt from value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The effect of applying VAT to the exempt sector cannot readily be determined, because some of the outputs such as financial services are difficult to value or tax. An estimate could be prepared only at disproportionate cost. Estimates of the cost of zero-rating are in table 4B.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax took up for a family on average male earnings with two children in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Maude
  Approximately 2·7 per cent. of gross earnings and 5·0 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had about value added tax misdeclaration penalties from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am aware that my hon. Friend has made representations to Treasury Ministers expressing concern about the operation of the penalty regime.

  In my Budget statement I acknowledged these concerns and announced the setting-up of a thorough review of the penalty regime with a view to legislation for changes in the 1992 Budget. The review will include full consultation with the accountancy profession and business interests and all constructive proposals will be carefully considered. Pending the outcome of the review the rate of penalty was reduced from 30 to 20 per cent. from 20 March 1991 and relaxations were introducted by Customs.

  Differences1 in local authority expenditure between the 1990 public expenditure White Paper and the statistical supplement to the Autumn statement

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  England

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  -12

  -23

  Pay

  64

  86

  225

  93

  623

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  -106

  -100

  -127

  -215

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  -12

  -23

  Current grants to persons

  38

  56

  -51

  51

  23

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  4

  -21

  -13

  200

  841

  Capital grants

  1

  21

  16

  78

  108

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of local government expenditure in England he anticipates will be met from central Government in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95 and (e) 1995–96.

  Mr. Mellor
  For 1991–92, around 83 per cent. of budgeted current expenditure. As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget statement, local taxation is now at a level that the Government believe should be sustainable in the longer term. Much depends however on the level of local authority expenditure in future years.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the percentage of local government expenditure paid for by central Government in 1991–92; what it was in 1986–87 and 1981–82; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Central Government support for local authorities in 1991–92 will account for around 83 per cent. of current expenditure in England, compared with 78 per cent. in 1986–87 and 81 per cent. in 1981–82. For consistency, the figures for past years include income from non-domestic rates.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1984–85 to 1993–94, using the territories and economic categories of table 5.7 of Cm. 1520, of changes between total local authority expenditure (a) between table 21.4.11. of Cm. 1021 and table 5.11 of Cm. 1520 and (b) between table 5.11 of Cm. 1021 and the "Financial Report and Budget Statement" 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on differences between the figures for local authority expenditure given in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper—Cm. 1021—and the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520—for the years up to 1989–90 are given in the table. They are on the same basis as the information on differences from Cm. 1021 presented in the supplement, that is, they exclude differences arising from changes in the way expenditure is recorded—classification changes—or from transfers between Departments or sectors, for example, switching responsibility for expenditure from central Government to local authorities. Corresponding analyses for 1990–91 and future years and on differences between the supplement and the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are not available.
  241

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Lending and other financial transactions

  4

  9

  8

  -2

  -74

  Total

  6

  50

  57

  192

  1,498

  Scotland

  Pay

  —

  —

  —

  -11

  -14

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  —

  -7

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  -5

  -3

  Current grants to persons

  —

  —

  —

  -4

  -6

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  1

  —

  —

  -24

  -7

  Capital grants

  —

  —

  —

  7

  -1

  Lending and other financial transactions

  —

  —

  —

  9

  -4

  Total

  1

  —

  —

  -35

  -34

  Wales

  Pay

  —

  —

  —

  12

  81

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  -12

  -12

  Current grants to persons

  3

  7

  3

  11

  9

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  —

  -1

  —

  4

  57

  Capital grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Lending and other financial transactions

  —

  1

  —

  4

  -2

  Total

  3

  7

  3

  44

  136

  Great Britain

  Pay

  64

  86

  225

  94

  689

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  - 106

  -100

  -127

  -197

  Current grants to persons

  41

  63

  -48

  57

  26

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  4

  -22

  -13

  180

  892

  Capital grants

  1

  21

  16

  85

  110

  Lending and other financial transactions

  5

  9

  8

  11

  -80

  Total

  10

  57

  61

  201

  1,600

  Northern Ireland

  Pay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Current grants to persons

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  Capital grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lending and other financial transactions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  United Kingdom

  Pay

  64

  86

  225

  94

  695

  Other current expenditure on goods and services

  -106

  -100

  -127

  -197

  Subsidies

  —

  —

  —

  -29

  -38

  Current grants to persons

  41

  63

  -48

  57

  26

  Net capital expenditure on assets

  4

  -22

  -13

  180

  891

  Capital grants

  1

  21

  16

  85

  111

  Lending and other financial transactions

  5

  9

  8

  11

  -80

  Total

  10

  57

  61

  201

  1,605

  1 The differences shown are differences after adjustments for changes of classification and switches between departments and spending sectors.

  Charities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposals he announced in the Budget for assistance to charities in respect of value added tax.
  242
  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations from charities since his Budget statement.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from charities since his Budget statement.
  243
  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations from charities since his Budget statement.

  Manufacturing Output
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in manufacturing output has been in the last three months.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the three months December to February, manufacturing output was 2·1 per cent. lower than in the previous three months.

  Growth
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many consecutive quarters he forecasts growth will be negative after 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  Forecasts of GDP are published for half-yearly periods. The Budget forecast shows a fall in GDP of 1½ per cent. between the second half of 1990 and the first half of 1991, and growth of ¾ per cent. between the first and second halves of 1991.

  Interest Rates
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about current interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the position of the pound sterling within the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Maples
  Sterling is currently trading a little above its central rate.

  Foundation for Sport and Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department plan to hold meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and on what dates such meetings will take place;

  (2) if he will list in full the organisations with which Ministers or officials in his Department have held meetings with regard to establishing the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and on what dates such meetings took place;

  Married couple with two children aged seven and 11—Rent: £25·60—Community charge: £9·62

  Gross earnings

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  Earnings £100—£110

  100·00

  91·94

  43·32

  16·75

  1·25

  2·08

  155·34

  120·12

  101·00

  92·60

  42·86

  16·75

  1·12

  2·05

  155·38

  120·16

  102·00

  93·26

  42·39

  16·75

  1·00

  2·02

  155·42

  120·20

  103·00

  93·92

  41·93

  16·75

  0·87

  1·99

  155·46

  120·24

  104·00

  94·58

  41·47

  16·75

  0·74

  1·96

  155·50

  120·28

  105·00

  95·24

  41·01

  16·75

  0·61

  1·93

  155·54

  120·32

  106·00

  95·90

  40·55

  16·75

  0·00

  1·90

  155·10

  119·88

  107·00

  96·56

  40·08

  16·75

  0·00

  1·87

  155·26

  120·04

  244
  (3) how many meetings have taken place between Ministers and officials from his Department with representatives of the pools companies, to discuss the establishing of a new Foundation for Sport and the Arts, since 28 March; and what plans there are for further meetings;

  (4) what progress has been made towards the setting up of the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 28 March, my officials have held one meeting—on 16 April—with representatives of Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, the three members of the Pools Promoters Association. Following that meeting, work is progressing towards the establishment of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. Further meetings with the promoters will be held as necessary.

  Pay Increases (Statistics)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average increase in net weekly spending power of a man with two children of seven and 11 years and a non-working wife for each extra £1 he earns if he increases his pay from(a) £100 to £110, (b) £110 to £120, (c) £120 to £130, d) £130 to £140 and (e) £140 to £150, assuming he pays average rent and community charge.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  For the purposes of these examples it has been assumed that housing costs remain static irrespective of the level of gross earrnings. The information is set out in the tables, which show changes in net weekly spending power at the various levels of gross pay to which the hon. Member has referred. Total net income is the product of the interaction of income-related benefits and the tax system at any given level of gross earnings. All assumptions used are as those in the published tax benefit model tables. Each family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to its size and to pay estimated average rent and community charge. Average rents are provisional 1991–92 figures and community charge has been assessed at £250 per annum. Any relevant changes announced in the Budget including the October increase in child benefit, have also been incorporated. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical rents so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.
  245

  Gross earnings

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent rebate

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  108·00

  97·22

  39·62

  16·75

  0·00

  1·84

  155·43

  120·21

  109·00

  97·88

  39·16

  16·75

  0·00

  1·81

  155·60

  120·38

  110·00

  98·54

  38·70

  16·75

  0·00

  1·78

  155·77

  120·55

  Earnings £111—£120

  111·00

  99·20

  38·24

  16·75

  0·00

  1·75

  155·94

  120·72

  112·00

  99·86

  37·77

  16·75

  0·00

  1·72

  155·10

  120·88

  113·00

  100·52

  37·31

  16·75

  0·00

  1·69

  156·27

  121·05

  114·00

  101·18

  36·85

  16·75

  0·00

  1·66

  156·44

  121·22

  115·00

  101·84

  36·39

  16·75

  0·00

  1·63

  156·61

  121·39

  116·00

  102·50

  35·93

  16·75

  0·00

  1·60

  156·78

  121·56

  117·00

  103·16

  35·46

  16·75

  0·00

  1·57

  156·94

  121·72

  118·00

  103·82

  35·00

  16·75

  0·00

  1·54

  157·11

  121·89

  119·00

  104·48

  34·54

  16·75

  0·00

  1·51

  157·28

  122·06

  120·00

  105·14

  34·08

  16·75

  0·00

  1·48

  157·45

  122·23

  Earnings £121—£130

  121·00

  105·80

  33·62

  16·75

  0·00

  1·45

  157·62

  122·40

  122·00

  106·46

  33·15

  16·75

  0·00

  1·42

  157·78

  122·56

  123·00

  107·12

  32·69

  16·75

  0·00

  1·39

  157·95

  122·73

  124·00

  107·78

  32·23

  16·75

  0·00

  1·36

  158·12

  122·90

  125·00

  108·44

  31·77

  16·75

  0·00

  1·34

  158·30

  123·08

  126·00

  109·10

  31·31

  16·75

  0·00

  1·31

  158·47

  123·25

  127·00

  109·76

  30·84

  16·75

  0·00

  1·28

  158·63

  123·41

  128·00

  110·42

  30·38

  16·75

  0·00

  1·25

  158·80

  123·58

  129·00

  111·08

  29·92

  16·75

  0·00

  1·22

  158·97

  123·75

  130·00

  111·74

  29·46

  16·75

  0·00

  1·19

  159·14

  123·92

  Earnings £131—£140

  131·00

  112·40

  29·00

  16·75

  0·00

  1·16

  159·31

  124·09

  132·00

  113·06

  28·53

  16·75

  0·00

  1·13

  159·47

  124·25

  133·00

  113·72

  28·07

  16·75

  0·00

  1·10

  159·64

  124·42

  134·00

  114·38

  27·61

  16·75

  0·00

  1·07

  159·81

  124·59

  135·00

  115·04

  27·15

  16·75

  0·00

  1·04

  159·98

  124·76

  136·00

  115·70

  26·69

  16·75

  0·00

  1·01

  160·15

  124·93

  137·00

  116·36

  26·22

  16·75

  0·00

  0·98

  160·31

  125·09

  138·00

  117·02

  25·76

  16·75

  0·00

  0·95

  160·48

  125·26

  139·00

  117·68

  25·30

  16·75

  0·00

  0·92

  160·65

  125·43

  140·00

  118·34

  24·84

  16·75

  0·00

  0·89

  160·82

  125·60

  Earnings £141—£150

  141·00

  119·00

  24·38

  16·75

  0·00

  0·86

  160·99

  125·77

  142·00

  119·66

  23·91

  16·75

  0·00

  0·83

  161·15

  125·93

  143·00

  120·32

  23·45

  16·75

  0·00

  0·80

  161·32

  126·10

  144·00

  120·98

  22·99

  16·75

  0·00

  0·77

  161·49

  126·27

  145·00

  121·64

  22·53

  16·75

  0·00

  0·74

  161·66

  126·44

  146·00

  122·30

  22·07

  16·75

  0·00

  0·71

  161·83

  126·61

  147·00

  122·96

  21·60

  16·75

  0·00

  0·68

  161·99

  126·77

  148·00

  123·62

  21·14

  16·75

  0·00

  0·65

  162·16

  126·94

  149·00

  124·28

  20·68

  16·75

  0·00

  0·62

  162·33

  127·11

  150·00

  124·94

  20·22

  16·75

  0·00

  0·59

  162·50

  127·28

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 showing for each regional, district and island council and for Scotland as a whole (a) grant-aided expenditure, (b) grant-aided expenditure expressed as pounds per head, pounds per adult and pounds per community charge unit, (c) the community charge required to be levied to finance grant-aided expenditure, (e) the long-run community charge required to be levied to finance expenditure 1 per cent., 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. below and 1 per cent., 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. above grant-aided expenditure; (f) Government grant as a percentage of local authority expenditure at each of the spending levels specified in (e)
  246
  above, (g) that level of expenditure as a percentage of grant-aided expenditure which would require a zero community charge and (h) that level of expenditure as a percentage of grant-aided expenditure which would require a zero long-run community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vacation Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how vacation hardship allowance is calculated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The vacation hardship allowance may be used to provide student maintenance outwith term time in certain defined circumstances. Its maximum value is broadly similar to the additional weeks allowance for students on courses with extended terms and in recent
  247
  years this has been increased to reflect the movement in student maintenance rates generally. The amount actually payable in any individual case depends on the circumstances of the applicant.

  On 27 March, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that, subject to the approval of the necessary regulations, the equivalent discretionary allowance would be discontinued in England and Wales. Those regulations come into force on 17 April and I can confirm that it is our intention to discontinue this allowance in Scotland also.

  Health board

  Application received

  Current status

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  Commenced fundholding 1 April 1991

  Greater Glasgow

  1

  Application received March 1991: currently under consideration

  Lothian

  1

  Commenced fundholding 1 April 1991

  Tayside

  2

  Recognition granted; date of commencement still to be set.

  Practices in Scotland may submit applications at any time during the course of a year. It is for the health board to determine and agree in consultation with the individual practices concerned the date on which recognition takes effect, and the date of commencement.

  Number of vials/bottles produced by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service Years ending 31 March—to NHS, private sector. No products were issued to other bodies in the period

  Product

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Vials or bottles

  NHS

  Private sector

  NHS

  Private sector

  NHS

  Private sector

  NHS

  Private sector

  Factor 8

  Vials

  37,243

  —

  52,204

  —

  41,335

  —

  42,798

  —

  Factor IX (DEFIX)

  Vials

  1,013

  —

  9,614

  —

  9,160

  —

  7,812

  —

  Intramuscular IgG

  Normal IgG

  Vials

  6,735

  30

  8,592

  7

  14,200

  7

  15,225

  —

  Anti-D IgG

  Vials

  12,870

  54

  16,693

  44

  16,935

  22

  16,637

  36

  Anti-tetanus IgG

  Vials

  4,934

  —

  4,555

  —

  4,175

  —

  3,904

  —

  Hepatitis (HBs) IgG

  Vials

  601

  —

  734

  1

  1,519

  —

  1,320

  —

  Varicella Zoster

  Vials

  393

  —

  400

  —

  490

  —

  550

  —

  Rubella IgG

  Vials

  170

  —

  120

  —

  20

  —

  315

  —

  Rabies IgG

  Vials

  40

  —

  195

  —

  53

  —

  30

  —

  Measles IgG

  Vials

  175

  —

  70

  —

  65

  —

  203

  —

  Intravenous IgG

  Normal IgG

  Vials

  4,970

  —

  7,919

  —

  8,485

  —

  10,854

  —

  CMV IgG

  Vials

  64

  —

  817

  —

  1,291

  —

  902

  —

  Measles IgG

  Vials

  20

  —

  65

  —

  46

  —

  —

  —

  Tetanus IgG

  Vials

  5

  —

  88

  —

  8

  —

  62

  —

  Albumin

  Bottles

  2,490

  —

  6,642

  —

  6,426

  —

  4,692

  —

  SPPS

  Bottles

  75,258

  4

  93,594

  16

  88,631

  —

  84,378

  —

  Note: Products are made available to the private sector only when all NHS needs are fully covered.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for the past 10 years, the number of units of blood used in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) private hospitals.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for budget-holding status have now been(a) received for general practitioners and (b) accepted by the boards, for each Scottish health board; and in respect of what starting date in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Five applications for recognition as a GP fundholder have been received by health boards to date. The further details requested are set out in the following table.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those blood products produced by the Scottish blood transfusion service, with the number used in the past 10 years in(a) NHS hospitals; (b) private hospitals and (c) sold to other bodies.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not readily available in respect of the last 10 years but information relating to the four years to 31 March 1990 is set out in the following table.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not readily available in respect of each of the last 10 years but information relating to the four years ending 31 March 1990 is set out in the following table:
  249

  Units of whole blood (450 ml)

  NHS

  Private

  1986–87

  26,092

  315

  1987–88

  18,967

  243

  1988–89

  22,243

  211

  1989 –90

  11,576

  128

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for the past 10 years, the number of units of blood used for the extraction of other blood components.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not readily available in respect of the last 10 years but information relating to the four years ending 31 March 1990 is set out in the following table:

  Years ending 31 March

  Units used for extraction of other blood components

  1986–87

  259,144

  1987–88

  240,538

  1988–89

  243,594

  1989–90

  263,733

  Purchaser/Provider Contracts
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to ensure that Scottish general practitioners are aware of the terms of the purchaser/provider contracts being made on their behalf by health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Circulars to health boards issued by the Scottish Office have emphasised that one of the main objectives of the new NHS contracts system is to provide health boards and GPs with the opportunity to work more closely together for the benefit of patients. Boards have therefore been instructed to set up appropriate consultative arrangements for discussion with general practitioners on their present and intended referral patterns, and to liaise on the placement of contracts and on the introduction of changes to contracts once these are in place.

  Health Board Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the number of regraded professional and technical category B staff who have appealed against their new grade; and how many of these appeals have been heard.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of appeals by PTB staff against their new grades and on those heard is not held centrally. At Scottish appeals committee level 2 appeals have been heard and 25 are awaiting a hearing.

  Designated Place Provisions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money, both capital and revenue, respectively, has been invested by his Department in designated place provisions under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in each year since 1980.
  250
  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  Capital(£)

  Revenue (£)

  1980–81

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  150,000

  —

  1983–84

  —

  119,000

  1984–85

  —

  109,000

  1985–86

  —

  109,500

  1986–87

  —

  70,000

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  150,000

  3,350

  Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of private residential or nursing homes for the elderly in each local authority which have closed in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS long-stay beds for the elderly have been closed in each health board in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Community Care
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to monitor the effect on carers of the return of patients to the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government recognise the important role played by carers and their own need for support. Funding has been provided to establish a Scottish office for the Carers National Association. In preparing community care plans local authorities will take account of the views of organisations representing carers; and in assessing the needs of individuals for community care services local authorities will take account of the support being provided by any informal carers and their ability to continue offering it. The recently introduced complaints procedure will offer improved rights for uses of services to complain if the services they receive are inadequate. All these aspects of community care will be monitored by the Scottish Office.

  Funding of Health Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for programmes for Scotland for funds for the development of medical audit by general practitioners, money for pilot projects in areas of deprivation and local initiatives in the delivery of primary health care services to members of ethnic minority groups, along the lines of those announced for England.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish arrangements for medical audit in general practice differ radically from those in England. In Scotland general practitioners and hospital doctors have equal access to a block of funds allocated to health boards for medical audit purposes, and to funding retained centrally for national projects.
  251
  By October 1990 there were 33 audit projects in hand or planned in general practice in Scotland covering 11 health boards. The project list includes four joint projects with other specialties and one national project. The total recurring resources for medical audit allocated to boards for 1991–92 amount to £2·3 million, a 50 per cent. increase over 1990–91.

  Developing audit in general practice is a high priority for the Government, and from July this year an audit adviser with a national remit for facilitating the implementation process will be funded from central resources. Audit activity in general practice is expected to increase significantly as a result.

  With regard to money for pilot projects in areas of deprivation and local initiatives in the delivery of primary health care to members of ethnic minorities, it is not clear to which announcement or announcements this refers. If the hon. Member cares to provide clarification of this I would be happy to provide a further response.

  Health Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce an initiative in Scotland similar to that announced for England and Wales in February for the development of services through the integration of primary and secondary health care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The structure of the health service in Scotland already brings together all aspects of hospital, community health and family practitioner services within health board's responsibilities.

  The health boards and NHS management executive in Scotland are working together to ensure that this integration works as well as possible at all levels, and thereby to improve the overall quality of service to patients.

  Number

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior Assistant

  Assistant

  Total

  Scotland

  5

  18

  57

  125

  62

  35

  1

  3

  306

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  0

  1

  9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  1

  1

  3

  3

  2

  0

  0

  10

  Borders

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  3

  6

  0

  0

  0

  9

  Grampian

  1

  4

  8

  23

  4

  8

  0

  1

  49

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  6

  13

  37

  22

  8

  0

  0

  86

  Highland

  0

  0

  3

  2

  6

  0

  0

  0

  11

  Lanarkshire

  0

  1

  3

  11

  11

  2

  0

  0

  28

  Lothian

  2

  4

  21

  28

  2

  10

  0

  0

  67

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Tayside

  2

  0

  3

  12

  5

  2

  1

  1

  26

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage of Total Number

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior Assistant

  Assistant

  Scotland

  1·6

  5·9

  18·6

  40·8

  20·3

  11·4

  0·3

  1·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·0

  11·1

  11·1

  44·4

  22·2

  0·0

  0·0

  11·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·0

  10·0

  10·0

  30·0

  30·0

  20·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Borders

  0·0

  0·0

  42·9

  28·6

  0·0

  28·6

  0·0

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·0

  0·0

  33·3

  0·0

  33·3

  33·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Hospital Costs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual cost of keeping an elderly person in a national health service long-stay hospital bed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average cost is £360 per week (£18,720 per annum) at 1989–90 prices. Details are published annually by the Common Services Agency, information and statastics division.

  Education (Grants)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current grants, within aggregate external finance, he is giving to education in 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1991–92, current grants within aggregate external finance will be available to support local authority activities in extending the use of Gaelic (£1·5 million) and to assist with the cost of in-service training of teachers and lecturers (£9.0 million).

  Physiological Measurement Technicians
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the number, in both absolute and percentage terms, of physiological measurement technicians in each of the new pay scale categories.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An agreement concluded by the Professional and Technical Staffs "B" Whitley Council in September 1989 introduced a new pay and grading structure for various groups of technicians in the NHS. Physiological measurement technicians were assigned to one of the eight medical technical officer (MTO) grades which are assistant, senior assistant, trainee and grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Health boards have stated that on 30 September 1990 the number of staff formerly graded as physiological measurement technicians in each of the MTO grades is as set out in the following tables.
  253

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior Assistant

  Assistant

  Fife

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Forth Valley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  33·3

  66·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Grampian

  2·0

  8·2

  16·3

  46·9

  8·2

  16·3

  0·0

  2·0

  Greater Glasgow

  0·0

  7·0

  15·1

  43·0

  25·6

  9·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Highland

  0·0

  0·0

  27·3

  18·2

  54·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lanarkshire

  0·0

  3·6

  10·7

  39·3

  39·3

  7·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Lothian

  3·0

  6·0

  31·3

  41·8

  3·0

  14·9

  0·0

  0·0

  Orkney

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Shetland

  0·0

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tayside

  7·7

  0·0

  11·5

  46·2

  19·2

  7·7

  3·8

  3·8

  Western Isles

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to encourage or to assist Scottish companies to contribute to the rebuilding of the infrastructure in Kuwait; and with what response.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Department of Trade and Industry has the lead role for ensuring that all United Kingdom companies are fully informed about, and assisted to participate in, the rebuilding and re-equipping of Kuwait.

  Within the overall United Kingdom effort the Scottish Office Industry Department and Scottish Enterprise are working together to ensure that companies in Scotland can take full advantage of any opportunities which arise. Details of the names and capabilities of over 300 companies have been passed to DTI for inclusion in their Kuwait database and these companies will be informed about developments and opportunities as they arise, Both bodies, together with DTI, were instrumental in organising an extremely successful business briefing on rebuilding Kuwait in Edinburgh on 4 April. The Department also ensured that Scottish interests were represented in a delegation of United Kingdom businessmen, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which visited Kuwait from 8 to 11 April.

  Male

  Female

  Fire Authority

  Whole time

  Retained

  Volunteer

  Whole time

  Retained

  Volunteer

  Central

  239

  160

  12

  —

  2

  —

  Dumfries & Galloway

  97

  189

  13

  —

  —

  1

  Fife

  377

  94

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Grampian

  308

  445

  28

  —

  2

  6

  Highland &Islands

  95

  376

  982

  —

  1

  10

  Lothian & Borders

  687

  285

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Strathclyde

  2,231

  617

  232

  2

  4

  3

  Tayside

  401

  245

  44

  1

  —

  —

  Totals

  4,435

  2,411

  1,311

  4

  11

  20

  Oban Hospital
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many hospital beds were available in Oban for(a) medical, (b) surgical, (c) maternity, (d) geriatric and (e) other health care during each year since 1987; how many are currently available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many beds will be available in the proposed new Oban hospital for (a) medical, (b) surgical, (c) maternity, (d) geriatric and (e) other health care; and if he will make a statement.

  Primary Testing (Leaflet)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department in respect of air freight charges to convey the leaflet, "Primary Testing: A Guide for Parents" to Shetland and subsequently distribute the leaflet to schools in Shetland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A single contract for distribution throughout Scotland was negotiated on the basis of competitive tender. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Orkney Children's Panel
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary my of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce his decision on whether or not he consents to the removal from office of the reporter to the Orkney children's panel.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decision shortly.

  Fire Service
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operational(a) men and (b) women firefighters are employed in each fire authority or fire and civil defence authority in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, as at 31 December 1990, is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest centrally available information on staffed beds in Oban hospitals for the last four years is set out in the attached table. Current available staffed beds are as at year ending 31 December 1990.

  The new Oban hospital will provide 138 beds. The board's present intention is to designate 70 for acute, 62 elderly and elderly with mental disability and six for obstetrics. In addition a full range of support services will be available including out-patients, accident and emer-gency, operating facilities and an X-ray unit.
  255

  Hospital activity statistics for Oban hospitals—average available staffed beds; by specialty group: years ending 31 March 1987 to 1990 and year ending 31 December 19901

  Year ending 31 March

  Year ending 31 December1

  Specialty

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1990

  All specialties

  163

  162

  163

  162

  159

  Medical specialties

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  Surgical specialties

  33

  33

  33

  33

  33

  Maternity specialties

  10

  9

  10

  9

  6

  Geriatric specialties

  62

  62

  62

  62

  62

  Other specialties

  17

  17

  17

  17

  17

  1 Provisional.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made regarding the building of the new Oban hospital; what was the closing date for tenders; which bid was successful; when building will begin; when completion is expected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Tenders have been issued by Strathclyde regional council in respect of the enabling work to access the new Oban hospital site. This work will involve the realignment of the existing trunk road and creation of spur road to give site access, and is programmed to start in June this year.

  Tenders for the main hospital building contract are planned for issue before the end of April. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded in November, and on this timetable the hospital will be completed towards the end of 1994.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Scottish local authorities are to be compensated in respect of the statutory reduction of community charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A new grant—community charge grant—is to be paid to local authorities to reimburse them for the loss of community charge income arising from the provisions of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. Payment of this grant will be made to Scottish authorities in 49 weekly instalments each totalling £8·921 million commencing later this month on the basis of an estimate of the charge income forgone by each authority. Final grant entitlement will be calculated after the end of the financial year 1991–92. Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the relevant vote (class XV vote 22). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure (estimated at £26·762 million for the grant payments to be made in April and the early part of May) will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  With the consent of the Treasury, I also plan to front-load payments of revenue support grant to Scottish authorities for the current year. Through a combination of community charge grant and revenue support grant, Scottish authorities will receive grant totalling nearly £955 million by the end of June which is over £280 million more than would have been the case under the normal arrangements for the payment of revenue support grant.

  It is obviously desirable that levying authorities should issue revised bills as quickly as possible, but I am satisfied
  256
  that this additional grant will compensate all authorities for the loss of charge income which they are likely to face while rebilling takes place.

  Educational Spending
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, at 1990–91 prices, what was the capital allocation for educational spending for each of the regional and islands councils in every year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: This is a matter for the educational authorities.

DEFENCE

  Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 556, to the hon. Member for Newport West (Mr. Flynn), on protection against hydrocarbons, what are the interim results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of longer-term effects of hydrocarbons released, undertaken in liaison with United States and Saudi environmental health officials.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work is continuing on the analysis of the long-term effects of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. However, they are not expected to cause skin problems, provided exposure is intermittent and short. The current consensus also suggests that there is no risk of ill-effects to the lungs arising from short-term exposure and only small risks as a result of long-term exposure. Commercially available protective masks have now been issued to British service personnel to reduce inhalation of hydrocarbons.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he specifically asked Mr. David Calcutt QC not to prepare a report, but simply to state his conclusions, on the Colin Wallace affair.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The terms of reference for Mr. Calcutt's investigation were set out in my statement to the House on 30 January last year at column 112. I undertook that his conclusions and recommendations would be made public, without publishing any classified matters or material. This is what has been done.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking in Kuwait to deal with(a) land mines on approach roads to oil fires and (b) mines hidden in lakes of oil.
  258
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces are not involved in such work at present. However, we are considering the ways in which British forces might support the civil rehabilitation and reconstruction programme in Kuwait.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis for the years 1984–85 to 1993–94, using the support types of table 5.1 of Cm. 1520 supplemented by the categories of grant of table 5.2, of changes in central Government support for local authorities in the United Kingdom as a whole and by territory, (a) between table 21.4.1. of Cm. 1021 and table 5.1 of Cm. 1520 and (b) between table 5.1 of Cm. 1520 and the "Financial Report and Budget Statement" 1991–92.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on differences between the figures for central Government support for local authorities given in the 1990 public expenditure White

  Differences1 in Central Government Support for Local Authorities between the 1990 Public Expenditure While Paper and the Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  21992–93

  England

  —

  Revenue support grant3

  —

  —

  —

  -70

  -27

  —

  1,617

  1,990

  Non-domestic rate payments3

  —

  —

  31

  108

  115

  —

  Current grants within AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -4

  191

  259

  410

  of which: Low rateable value area/area protection grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  40

  Inner London education grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  -79

  761

  1,353

  1,400

  of which: Transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -94

  260

  260

  Credit approvals

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  —

  148

  199

  220

  Capital grants

  1

  —

  1

  -9

  39

  -162

  68

  80

  Total

  1

  —

  32

  23

  43

  938

  3,496

  4,100

  Scotland

  Revenue support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  16

  268

  260

  Non-domestic rate payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Current grants within AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  -17

  14

  10

  of which: Area protection grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  -3

  -1

  -42

  -19

  5

  —

  of which: Transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  13

  Credit approvals

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -9

  -11

  15

  -4

  10

  Net capital allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  40

  Total

  -1

  -1

  -4

  -10

  -43

  -5

  313

  400

  Wales

  Revenue support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  268

  260

  Non-domestic rate payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Current grants within AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -3

  7

  12

  20

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6

  30

  75

  100

  of which:Transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  10

  Credit approvals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -16

  21

  60

  Capital grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  11

  -8

  -10

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -10

  33

  238

  200

  Great Britain

  Revenue support grant

  —

  —

  —

  -70

  -18

  16

  2,023

  2,330

  Non-domestic rate payments

  —

  —

  31

  108

  115

  —

  Current grants within AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6

  181

  285

  440

  of which: Low rateable value area/area protection grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  40

  Inner London education grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  -3

  -4

  -127

  772

  1,433

  1,500

  of which: Transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -94

  264

  300

  Credit approvals

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -12

  -12

  147

  215

  300

  260
  Paper—Cm. 1021—and the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520—are given in the table. They are on the same basis as the information on differences from Cm. 1021 presented in the supplement, that is, they exclude differences arising from changes in the way expenditure is recorded—classification changes—or from transfers between departments or sectors, for example, switching responsibility for expenditure from central Government to local authorities. Corresponding analyses of differences between the supplement and the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" are not available. Details of changes since the supplement arising from the introduction of the community charge grant and the measures announced on 17 January to reduce the levels of community charges are set out in table 5.2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".
  261

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  21992–93

  Capital grants

  1

  —

  1

  -9

  38

  -150

  91

  110

  Total

  —

  -1

  28

  14

  -9

  966

  4,047

  4,770

  Northern Ireland

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  -2

  -1

  —

  Capital grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  -1

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  Revenue support grant

  —

  —

  —

  -70

  -18

  16

  2,023

  2,330

  Non-domestic rate payments

  —

  —

  31

  108

  115

  —

  Current grants within AEF4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -6

  181

  285

  440

  of which: Low rateable value area/area protection grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  40

  Inner London education grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Current grants outside AEF4

  —

  —

  -3

  -4

  -128

  771

  1,432

  1,500

  of which: Transitional relief

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -94

  264

  300

  Credit approvals

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -12

  -12

  147

  215

  300

  Capital grants

  1

  —

  1

  -9

  38

  -149

  92

  110

  Total

  —

  -1

  28

  14

  -10

  965

  4,047

  4,700

  1 The differences shown are differences after adjustments for changes of classification and switches between departments and spending sectors.

  2 Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million or, in the case of totals for current grants outside AEF and totals including these grants, to the nearest £100 million.

  3 The differences shown for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are higher than the corresponding differences shown in the 1990 Autumn Statement (table 1.3) because they take account of a switch between revenue support grant and capital grants/credit approvals. This switch was below the threshold for which differences were adjusted in the Autumn Statement.

  4 Aggregate external finance.

  262

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report on the high speed rail link by Sir Frederick Holliday; and whether they will undertake to publish it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, British Rail expects to submit to the Government very soon the results of its review of the route options for a new rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel. Publication arrangements have yet to be settled.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. Does he accept that it is very much in the public interest that there should be publication of this important report? Will he ensure that, as concerns the Government's responsibilities, before any final decision is taken there should be a thorough public evaluation not only of the British Rail preferred route but of the alternative routes that have been canvassed?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. I should have mentioned that Sir Frederick Holliday is a non-executive member of the BR board. He has been advising on the processes for the environmental assessment. BR's environmental consultants, ERL, will publish probably in the middle of this year a report on the eastern half of the route and in due course an environmental statement covering the whole route.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that British Rail has appointed W.S. Atkins to conduct an independent review of the process of determining the route of the fast rail link? This would deal with the method adopted and also the criteria. One of the criteria is the environment. Is it not therefore imperative that we have not only the official report from British Rail but the additional report from the firm which it has commissioned, W.S. Atkins, so that we may consider the whole matter? If the Government have not made a decision, will the noble Viscount press the Government for both reports to be published?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that I need to press the Government on this. BR has appointed and confirmed W.S. Atkins as independent consultants to scrutinise the objectivity of its route study process. The consultants' interim report published on 4th March proposes a methodology for comparing options, including social costs and benefits. BR is applying this. I should add that the appointment
1550
of Sir Frederick Holliday as a non-executive member of the board is for the specific purpose of advising on the processes for the environmental assessment.

Unemployment Figures
3.4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of people unemployed on the most recent dale for which a figure is available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in March 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,092,700.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure released today is a monument to the incompetence of the Government in managing the economy? Does he deny that there are unique features in the figure in that all parts of the country and all types of jobs are affected? We have had increases in unemployment for 13 consecutive months. Those increases are a record since figures were first published. The Minister will state that these factors are necessary in order to reduce inflation. Will he say whether the Government will allow unemployment to reach 2½ million?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I recognise that all forms of unemployment are regrettable. No one should underestimate the difficulties that unemployment causes for individuals and their families. However, the Government are taking the necessary means to combat inflation and thereby to create the climate for renewed economic growth. We are already seeing the success of this strategy, evidenced by the recent falls in both the retail prices index and interest rates. This is the right path to job creation and sustainable falls in unemployment. The Government have also made available a wide-ranging set of measures, including training opportunities, to help unemployed people get back into work as soon as possible.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unemployment in the United Kingdom is rising faster than in any other country in the European Community? Our manufacturing base has been dangerously eroded; manufacturing output is down and still falling. We have balance of payments deficits unparalleled in our history. Does the noble Viscount believe that that picture augurs well for the future of our economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, manufacturing employment has been falling since 1966, but falls in recent years are exaggerated by reclassification of jobs in services. However, as perhaps the noble Lord will wish to know, in the United Kingdom productivity grew by an average of 4.7 per cent. a year in the period 1980 to 1990, which was the fastest of all major industrialised countries.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, we recognise the Government's intention to deal with inflation, which is the curse of mankind. However, is the noble Viscount aware that the building materials producers, who are by no means unfriendly to the Government, have predicted that the only way in which they can get out of the recession they are in at the moment is if and when mortgage rates are reduced to about 10 per cent.? That includes the interest rate. What is the Minister's view about that? What are the prospects?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we are seeing a faster fall in our inflation figures than most other countries in Europe. As noble Lords know, inflation has dropped from 10.9 per cent. to 8.2 per cent. and interest rates have gone down 3 per cent. during that period. That is the way to increase confidence in the industry. Inflation is due to fall again and on the back of that interest rates will also be reduced.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that projections by organisations such as the CBI are for a great deal more than 2 million unemployed at the end of this year? The figure of 3 million has been mentioned in some quarters. Does he agree that crisis measures other than those he has just enunciated may be more apposite?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not in the business of predicting the unemployment figure at the end of the year. However, the Government are providing the Employment Service with an additional £55 million to help unemployed people. From July, every person who reaches 13 weeks of unemployment will receive the offer of an interview and a chance to review their plans and assess further options for returning to work. With these additional resources, we shall be able to offer 650,000 opportunities to help unemployed people get back to work. This represents the most comprehensive range of help and advice ever available to unemployed people and will enable us to meet the guarantee in our newly extended aim.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel that this is an exceedingly important subject, to which my noble friend is bringing useful information? We understand the desire of the Opposition to make as many points on the matter as possible. However, as this is the seventh occasion in 12 working weeks when this question has been raised, does my noble friend consider that to raise this matter again is not an appropriate use of Question Time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I would point out that there will be a debate on unemployment next week.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister really claim that the Government are doing everything possible to help reduce unemployment when they have cut the money available to the training and enterprise councils by 30 per cent? Therefore people who could be in training to acquire jobs to fill the skills shortages that we all suffer from are instead unemployed. Special groups with special training needs have been devastated. Due to lack of funds, the organisation that
1552
I represent, the Apex Trust, has had to cut by two-thirds the training that it provides. Most of the people helped by the trust have criminal records and without help they are thrown back into unemployment. The Minister can well appreciate the results of such a course of action.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the establishment of the TECs will be completed within a much shorter period than was envisaged originally. They will now be established in two years instead of four years. That is a great success. The Government have contracted out training to the TECs. To get value for money they are recontracting with the suppliers of training. The most important issue is that we should achieve value for money.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in looking for useful information, and bearing in mind the several dozen changes in the statistical methods of calculating unemployment that have taken place over the past 11 years, will the Minister tell the House what the level of unemployment is as calculated on the original basis that existed when this Government took office in 1979? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information to hand. I hope he will write to me on this point and perhaps bring that information with him to the House on the regular occasions when this subject is raised.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord has suggested that the figures are not comparable. That is entirely untrue. In total there have been only eight significant changes affecting the unemployment count since 1979, all of which have been adjusted in the consistent seasonally adjusted series maintained by my department's statisticians. This series has been maintained to be consistent with the current coverage of the count to allow meaningful comparisons with the past to be made, and so that underlying trends can be more easily observed. The noble Lord asked me a specific question. When this Government came to power there were just over 1 million unemployed people.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House how many jobs are waiting to be filled at the present time?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. There are over 400,000 jobs available in the market place. It is also useful to know that 275,000 unemployed people leave unemployment each month. Over 50 per cent. of unemployed people leave unemployment within three months of becoming unemployed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Minister agreed with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, does not the Minister agree that this House would be at fault if it did not consistently draw the Government's attention to a matter of fundamental importance to the people of this country; namely, the alarmingly high increase in unemployment? Is the Minister aware that, up to the end of last February, claimant unemployment in Wales increased in 12 months by 18.1 per cent.? Is that not a disgrace? What

1553
action are the Government taking to invest in industry and in training to make some attempt to get things right?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the position in Wales has been much better than that in other parts of the country. The unemployment rate there is only 1.6 per cent. above the rate it was last year. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the Opposition should not remind the Government of their obligations. I take this opportunity of reminding the House of the contents of the Labour Party's document entitled Opportunity Britain, which was published this month. If the Labour Party ever came to power, it is estimated that, as a result of the minimum wages that that party advocates, at least 1 million jobs would be lost very quickly.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is not the most effective way of containing unemployment the moderation of wage demands and wage settlements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is entirely correct. Manufacturing industry is paying a high price for above average wage increases. Wages are currently rising by some 11.4 per cent. The wages offered by our major competitors such as the USA and Japan are virtually static.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, following that reply, can we hope that the noble friends of the Minister and their colleagues will set an example in terms of wage moderation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we all need to pay attention to wage moderation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a qualitative difference in the unemployment figures now as compared with 1981, in that the figures show that the whole of the country is now suffering from unemployment? Will the Minister confirm that 50,000 of the unemployed included in the figures published today on the increase in unemployment are to be found in the South of England? That position is now spreading North. Does the Minister agree that the cuts in interest rates have been too small and have occurred too late? Does the Minister further agree that we need much greater cuts, and soon, if the unemployment problem is to be dealt with and is not to reach a figure of 3 million by the end of 1992?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is correct to say that unemployment in the South East is rising and has risen at a higher rate than in other parts of the country. However, it still remains true that the average for the South East is below the national average. If there is an increase in an unemployment count that has traditionally been low, obviously that will increase the percentage. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should cut interest rates more quickly than is advisable and thereby put the strength of the pound at risk in the ERM.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister explain to his noble friend Lord Elton that the reason why people such as myself keep raising the
1554
matter of unemployment is because we are in a unique position as regards unemployment? The current rates of unemployment have never persisted for 13 consecutive months, as three or four speakers on this side of the House have said. That is the problem and we want to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the position is not unique. UK unemployment rates are still lower than the EC average. In recent months there have been rises in unemployment across the industrialised world, in the States, Italy, Canada and Australia.

Coastal Zone Planning
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the establishment of a coastal zone management unit to provide cohesion, advice and support for coastal zone planning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we recognised the importance of coastal zone issues in our recent White Paper on the environment and we made clear our concern for effective coastal zone planning during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill. We have, however, no plans to establish a new coastal zone management unit.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected Answer. But is she not aware of the growing concern that exists about the lack of strategic planning in coastal zones? That concern is shared by many organisations, including the National Trust. Local planning authorities have expressed the view that they could be much more effective if they had jurisdiction over adjacent coastal waters so that the coastal zone could be treated as a single unit for planning purposes. When I referred to this matter during the passage of the Bill the Minister has just referred to, she said that the Government were contemplating a review. Can she say how far matters have progressed with that review? Is it taking place, and when can we expect some results from it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, during the course of the planning Bill I said that there would be policy planning guidance. A review is being commissioned under the planning research programme of relevant published material on coastal planning and management. It will review powers, policies and actions for the planning, management and conservation of the coastal zone. It is part of a larger research programme on earth science information requirements for supporting coastal planning management. Research is also in progress on planning policy on climate change which considers the effect of rising sea levels.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the Government nonetheless re-examine the present situation? Technicalities affecting the shoreline usually mean that private legislation is required even when all the necessary planning permission has been

1555
granted. Does my noble friend accept that that means that there is a disincentive for worthwhile projects of renewal and enhancement because of the cost and uncertainty of embarking on private legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that a number of organisations have put forward positive proposals and made their views known to the Government about the direction and scope of coastal policy. My ministerial colleagues are meeting delegations from several such organisations, such as Wildlife Link, the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development and the Royal Society of Arts. They will be discussing many of those policies. We intend to give very careful consideration to all the proposals that are put to us before reaching a view.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Where the Joint Nature Conservation Committee offices have been established, and whether its financial allocation for 1991–92 is sufficient for its needs.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the committee's main offices are located at present in Monkstone House in Peterborough. The chairman has an office at Battleby in Scotland and small project teams are established elsewhere in Great Britain. The committee's budget for 1991–92 was agreed by the chairmen of the three country councils in discussion with the committee's chairman, Professor Sir Frederick Holliday.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but she did not answer the second part of my Question as to whether or not the financial allocation is adequate. Is it not the case that the allocations from the country councils to the JNCC have left it six members of staff short of its full complement, including two vital senior posts? Is there not also a problem over the legal standing of the committee in relation to its property transactions which means that it has difficulty in signing leases for accommodation and so on? Can the noble Baroness explain how the Government propose to overcome those difficulties?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, regarding the second point I am not aware of any legal difficulties, but I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness. Regarding the budget, prior to the setting up of the new councils the budget was £46 million, which represented an increase of 160 per cent. in real terms over the decade. In the year in which we set up the three country councils the budget was increased by a further £20 million, which included all the reorganisation costs. The budget was established on the basis of the full complement which I announced in great detail towards the end of the passage of the Bill
1556
through this House. Therefore, any decision not to fund posts or to hold posts back has not been taken on the basis of there not being funding for the posts.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that, as we understand it, with the passing of the Act the Secretary of State has a responsibility to see that the funds allocated by the country councils are sufficient for the needs of the JNCC. The JNCC is apparently six members of staff short of its complement, which means that the funding is not adequate. Can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State intends to fulfil his obligation under the Act to ensure that the funding is adequate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there appears to be a misunderstanding. The JNCC agreed a budget with the three chairmen. The budget was funded. The amount of money given by the country councils to the JNCC is positively identified in the funds that the Government give to the country councils. That has been done on the basis of the full complement that I announced in some detail when the Bill was passed in this House.
Baroness David: My Lords, am I right in understanding from what the Minister said that the main base of the JNCC is to be in Peterborough? Can the Minister tell the House how that will overcome the difficulties? I understood that the whole point of setting up the Scottish council and the new arrangement was that the JNCC would not be based in Peterborough. We were told that it was because guidance came from Peterborough that the old arrangement was so unpopular and that was why the NCC was to be split into three parts.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, accommodation is a matter for the committee but we understand that there may be a problem of perception. There is no question in practice of the JNCC operating alongside English Nature. I understand that the present accommodation may be a stop-gap arrangement and that the committee will be considering more permanent arrangements for the future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can I assure my noble friend that she can relax on this matter because we now have the best of both worlds? We have a separate nature conservancy for each of the three countries and we have co-ordination which enables issues at the national level to be considered by them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We always believed that this would be a very good arrangement and that the three countries would be served well. We were sure that the joint interests of the countries nationally and our contribution internationally would be well served by the arrangement with the JNCC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the reason the six senior posts referred to by my noble friend Lady Nicol are not being filled is not lack of funds, can the noble Baroness say why they are not being filled?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question of why the JNCC has chosen not to fill those vacancies must be

1557
a matter for the JNCC. I can confirm again that the funding for the country councils was established on the basis of the JNCC's bid for moneys for the three country councils. The funding that was given to the JNCC was on the basis of the full complement that I announced in some detail when the Bill was passed in this House.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and the Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be taken.

Shard Bridge Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Committee Work of the House: Select Committee
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that just before the Easter Recess, on Tuesday 26th March, you agreed to a Motion approving the Second Report from the Offices Committee. On that occasion the Chairman of Committees specifically drew your Lordships' attention to a proposal to set up a select committee to consider the situation with regard to all the various select committees of this House. The present Motion formally proposes the setting up of such a select committee. If your Lordships agree to it, the Committee of Selection will meet next week to propose the members of the select committee and that membership will be embodied in a Motion to be laid before the House immediately thereafter. The committee may then be expected to begin its work very soon and to complete it some time in the late summer or in the autumn. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a select committee be appointed to consider the committee work of the House and to make recommendations.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have given notice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I want to say a few words about this Motion and to ask him whether the terms of reference of the committee will be reasonably widely drawn. I draw his attention to the fact that some 15 years ago there was a special committee on practice and procedure of the House which looked in some detail at the functioning of the committee system. When the report of that committee was debated in the House some some months later the Leader of the House at the time gave a half promise of
1558
an experiment on the lines recommended by that committee. It was on the basis of that half promise that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, withdrew his Motion during the debate so that discussions could proceed about a possible small experiment.
That offer, which we understood to be genuine, was never implemented. There was never any experiment on the lines proposed in its report by the special committee on practice and procedure. It would be interesting to allow the new committee at least to look at the recommendations in that report to see whether any of them have stood the test of time and should now be subject to some kind of experiment.
I understand that one of the reasons for the new committee is that the European Communities Committee, for example, has been in existence for a long time and that it is now time for us to draw some lessons from its existence and its valuable work. Perhaps I may point out to the Leader of the House that the European Communities Committee presented evidence to that special committee when it sat 15 years ago. It drew attention to the fact that it was successful in harnessing more than 80 Members of your Lordships' House in detailed committee work which was widely recognised as successful not only here but in the European Community and particularly in the European Commission. The European Communities Committee said, in effect, said, "How odd it is that we do such valuable work on secondary legislation from Brussels and have never thought out how we should look at doing something similar about the more important legislation which reaches us from another place". The committee asked, "Is it not an odd situation that this valuable work has been going on so long and that we have not drawn the right lessons from it?"
I suspect that there were two reasons why the offer was never implemented. First, the two Front Benches were afraid that it would be impossible to man committees of the kind recommended by the special committee. If that is so, it should be said openly and we should look at the issue. After all, we are manning the European Communities Committee to the tune of 80 very active Members of your Lordships' House, so we need to know whether it is possible to start some small experiments on something similar concerning domestic legislation. The second reason why the offer was never implemented was that the Government feared that its legislation might become unduly delayed. Again, that matter should be considered.
Fifteen years is a long time for a report to lie on the table. My question to the Leader of the House is simply this: will it be clear from the terms of reference that the proposed new committee can range reasonably widely, look again at that report and advise the House whether we could more effectively carry out committee work in this Chamber than we do at the moment? After all, over the past 100 years we have lost power here but we have not yet maximised our influence. What that committee said to us 15 years ago is that it is about time that we looked at how to maximise our influence. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure me on the points that I have raised.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have no doubt whatsoever that the terms of reference of the select committee will be wide enough to cover the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will clear up one point. Do the terms of the resolution include or exclude the work of select committees, which are in many cases hampered by lack of staff back-up and are faced with mountains of paper which no one can read?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the select committee will be able to deal with that matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 69ZA:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Sentence for murder
. No court shall be required to sentence a person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Richard, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has asked me to say how very much he regrets, as I do, that he is unable to be here to participate in the debate today due to a long-standing engagement in the United States in which he has to play a principal role.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I mention briefly certain other amendments standing in our names; namely, Amendments Nos. 69A, 76A, 76B and 76D. Amendment No. 69ZA relates to the abolition of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Amendment No. 69A seeks to establish in all life sentence cases a judicial procedure to set the period of imprisonment as punishment, presently sometimes called "the tariff". Amendments Nos. 76A, 76B and 76D contain proposals for new judicial procedures relating to release in life sentence cases (in the case of those convicted of murder, only on licence). If adopted, Amendments Nos. 69A, 76A, 76B and 76D would apply whether or not the present amendment relating to abolition of the mandatory life sentence is adopted. All the amendments together are designed to implement the principal recommendations of the select committee on murder and life imprisonment of your Lordships' House appointed in July 1988 of which I had the honour to be chairman.
I now return to Amendment No. 69ZA. The committee was required by its terms of reference to consider:
"The question whether imprisonment for life should remain a mandatory rather than a maximum penalty for murder".
The purpose of the amendment is to do away with the mandatory life sentence for murder with the result that sentencing for murder would come within the discretion of the judiciary with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and thus bring sentencing in cases of murder in line with sentencing in other serious criminal cases. Appeal would of course lie to the Court of Appeal, either at the instance of the defendant or the prosecution as in other criminal cases since 1988.
The mandatory sentence of life imprisonment in cases of murder was introduced a generation ago in the context of the abolition of capital punishment. Whatever merits it may have had all that time ago, it has for many years now given rise to grave concern expressed with particular force in debates on the previous Criminal Justice Bill, now the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in late 1987. That led to the appointment of the select committee to which I referred.
The objections to the mandatory life sentence fall under three main heads. First, it vests in the Executive the effective power of sentencing exercised in secrecy. The mandatory life sentence vests in the Executive the right to determine how long the prisoner shall remain in prison; in the traditional words, for the purposes of retribution and deterrence or, in plain English, as punishment. It vests in the Executive the power to determine whether, after the expiration of that period, the prisoner shall or shall not be released on licence. Those powers have been exercised in secrecy. The Executive may have political reasons for reaching the decisions relating to specific prisoners. Justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done, which the present system notably fails to do.
Sentencing is essentially a judicial function which should be exercised in public and be subject to appeal. In the absence of those public elements there can be no confidence that a just and consistent sentencing policy is being pursued, the need for which was so much emphasised on all sides of the Chamber—and rightly so—in the earlier debate on the first amendment to the Bill.
Secondly, the punishment must fit the crime and be seen to do so. The application of one uniform sentence to all those convicted of murder in whatever circumstances is patently unjust and brings the law into disrepute. The scope of the crime of murder is wide and the variation in the circumstances in which it may be committed no less than in other criminal offences. The gravity of a murder may depend on so many circumstances that in attempting to select one or two of them to put murder into a special category leads to unacceptable anomalies. That is why the experiment carried out with such notable lack of success between 1957 and 1965 was terminated. The right way to deal with the matter is not to divide murder into degrees but to give the judge a discretion

1561
to impose the sentence which is appropriate to the particular offence, taking account of all the relevant circumstances.
Thirdly, and a consequence of that, is that the existence of the mandatory life sentence has resulted in the introduction of distortions in the administration of the law. A consultant psychiatrist and member of the Parole Board who gave evidence to the Select Committee argued forcefully that the defence of diminished responsibility was stretched in order to avoid the mandatory life sentence,
"in cases where it would manifestly be absurd and unjust for such a sentence"—
the mandatory life sentence—
"to be imposed".
While carrying out our study the case of the Thompson sisters arose. They shot their tyrannical father as he lay in bed suffering an epileptic fit and were given a two-year suspended sentence. That seems to have attracted nothing but public sympathy. Earlier in 1980, in the case of the Maw sisters, the sentence of three years' imprisonment on two young women who had deliberately killed their drunken father was harshly criticised for its severity and in the case of one of them was reduced on appeal to six months. The public are well able to recognise powerful mitigation even in the case of deliberate killing. The defendants were held to be acting under diminished responsibility in the Thompson case and under provocation in the Maw case. Those defences resulted in convictions of manslaughter and thus an escape from the mandatory life sentence which would have applied had they been found guilty of murder. So the existence of the mandatory life sentence itself introduces distortions into the law to avoid what are perceived to be its unjust consequences. That brings the law into disrepute.
But there are also other deeply felt consequences. The select committee sought evidence from the close families of those who had suffered bereavement by murder. It is perhaps easy for those of us in this Chamber who have not suffered in that way—there are some who have—to speak in an abstract way without regard to the human and social factors surrounding the crime of murder. The committee therefore invited the Parents of Murdered Children Group and the organisation Victim Support to give evidence to it. They expressed their concern that the existence of the mandatory sentence meant inappropriate verdicts of manslaughter. Many families of murder victims felt that,
"somebody being charged and found guilty of murder does imply and represent an appropriate recognition of the crime that has actually happened".
They made clear that they were pressing for a conviction of the crime of murder where that had been committed. The sentence, whether an appropriate determinate sentence or a life sentence, was of secondary importance. Since publication of the committee's report they have expressed their support for its conclusions. They are reported in last Tuesday's edition of The Times, 16th April.
It has been suggested that public concern as to further murders being committed by those who have once been convicted of murder, whether or not the
1562
offence was particularly heinous and whatever the circumstances, is such as to justify the continuance of the mandatory life sentence. But, as Justice in its evidence states:
"Experience has shown that the great majority of murders are committed in domestic circumstances by persons under immense emotional stress who are unlikely to offend again".
It is said that the mandatory sentence is a valuable deterrent. Yet the very fact that it is mandatory for all crimes which fall within the definition of murder dilutes what should be the awe inspiring nature of the life sentence. The common reaction that we all hear —"What is a life sentence: nine years?"—demonstrates that point. If the life sentence were discretionary it would, when awarded, reflect the heinousness of the crime and public revulsion, as does a life sentence in the case of rape.
If this amendment is adopted life imprisonment will remain available as punishment for murder. It will surely be awarded in those too frequent cases of heinous crimes of murder and the penal terms will surely be long, as they should be. The proposals that we have made represent no soft option.
It is also said that the mandatory life sentence must remain to allay public concern that government have gone soft on murder. Yet I cannot reconcile myself to the injustice of equating sentence for killing out of compassion and for murder in the course of terrorism, for financial gain or for political power; nor, I believe, can the public, of whom, after all, we form a part. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lane: The arguments in favour of abolishing the mandatory life sentence have been rehearsed time and again both in this Chamber and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I shall try to make some points perhaps at the risk of repetition.
First, there is no greater difficulty in assessing the proper length of a determinate sentence for murder than there is in doing the same for any other form of serious crime. Secondly, the person in the best position to carry out that task is the one who has heard the evidence; namely, the trial judge. He hears not only the evidence about the commission of the offence but also the medical evidence as to any abnormal medical or psychological condition afflicting the defendant. He hears the social evidence about his background and upbringing and indeed any other evidence which he, the judge, deems it proper to call for. All that is spoken in open court, in the hearing of the defendant, the public and the press.
Thirdly, if the defendant considers that the sentence imposed upon him has been too harsh or, on the other hand, if the Attorney-General considers that the sentence upon the defendant which has been passed is too lenient, either of them can appeal to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, and again the matter is heard in public with all the natural safeguards which that single fact entails and in the presence of the defendant himself. That possibility of an appeal by the Crown is the new feature which perhaps removes one of the few objections—some would say, the only legitimate objection—to the removal of the mandatory sentence.

1563
Let us compare that with what happens now when a mandatory life sentence is passed. First the defendant, the public and everybody know that what the judge says is untrue and that it is a practical certainty that the defendant will not spend the rest of his life in prison. Perhaps I may suggest in passing that to require a judge to pass a sentence which everyone knows bears no relation to actuality might seem to the casual observer to be marginally bizarre.
In fact the length of time spent in prison will range between the very short in the type of killing to which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred—the mercy killing as it is sometimes called—and the very long for such crimes as the deliberate killings of large numbers of people. Indeed there will be cases where the life sentence will still be necessary because of the heinousness of the crime or because of the danger which the defendant, through his propensities or medical condition, may present to the public if released. In those cases, of course, the judge will say why he is imposing the indeterminate sentence and there will be consequential changes which are the subject of further amendments to which it is not necessary at this stage to make reference.
However, in the great majority of cases it will be a matter of applying the same sentencing principles as the judge applies in other cases of serious crime like rape, manslaughter or others where the maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment.
The great advantage of the change, I suggest, would be this. What is now decided by no doubt some admirable but anonymous person in the Home Office upon advice from a variety of sources, including the trial judge and indeed the Lord Chief Justice, all of it tendered in private, would be done openly and would be subject to appeal in the way that has been described. I do not know how the matter strikes your Lordships, but fairness being the objective of any system of justice the present situation seems susceptible of improvement.
What then are the arguments to the contrary? The first is that murder, the gravest of crimes, is exceptional and requires exceptional punishment. Not everyone would agree with the initial premise in view of the fact that intent to kill is not a necessary ingredient. Intent to do serious bodily harm is enough. Let us assume nevertheless that it is the gravest crime and that exceptional punishment is required for it. That can be achieved by the imposition of a long determinate sentence. No crime, however exceptional, requires the imposition of a sentence which everyone knows will not be implemented. Such a sentence is exceptional but for the wrong reasons.
The next argument, one understands, is this. There are some murderers so dangerous and unpredictable that it is impossible to foretell when it will be safe to release them into public life again; hence the necessity for an indeterminate sentence. No one would disagree with that proposition but it is no reason for treating the man who does not present that danger in the same way.
What other reasons are there? Is it thought a sign of weakness if the mandatory life sentence goes? If so,
1564
that is surely a serious miscalculation. It is no weakness to replace what I suggest is a flawed system with one which at the very least offers an opportunity to achieve greater fairness and so greater justice.
Lord Renton: Whatever the merits or defects of the present system, I find myself worried about what is proposed as an alternative. The Court of Appeal will have a jurisdiction to hear all appeals, whether appeals against life sentence or against shorter sentences. Indeed, we can anticipate that, except where the sentence is clearly a rather lenient one there will be an appeal in practically every case.
The Court of Appeal will find itself setting guidelines in order to try to create consistency on the part of the judges when awarding sentences in case of murder. Then there will be a wrangle in some cases as to whether or not the guidelines have been followed.
Parallel with that, as I understand the position, there is to be a life sentences review tribunal for consideration of life sentences only. It will be composed differently from the way in which the Court of Appeal is composed and will no doubt develop different principles of approach. One wonders what will happen if the guidelines proposed by the Court of Appeal do not turn out in the case of life sentences to be the same as the guidelines proposed by the life sentences review tribunal.
I believe that this is the first time that I have ever ventured to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, for whom I and all in our profession have immense respect. I have great respect also for committees of your Lordships' House. It was with some hesitation that I decided to intervene briefly in this debate in order to express the doubts that I have about what is proposed. The noble and learned Lord has very properly mentioned that in every case the circumstances of the murder will be considered by the court in fixing sentence as will the character and antecedents of the accused and medical reports concerning him at the time of trial.
However, a third factor needs to be considered. It is the question of how the accused's personality, character and mental condition will develop, deteriorate or improve during his time in prison. That is a matter which the judges cannot anticipate when awarding a sentence which is not a life sentence. It is something which at present is considered. It is considered by the Parole Board in due course. It is considered by the Home Secretary on very expert, careful and highly qualified advice which he receives. It is the omission of the application of that third factor from the amendment which we are now asked to consider that I believe is regrettable. Therefore, in view of the confusion that can arise from disparity between the statement of guidelines by the Court of Appeal and the statement of guidelines in the case of life sentences by the review tribunal, and the serious possibility of short sentences of imprisonment for people who, in the light of experience in custody, should perhaps have been given a longer sentence, I have some misgivings about what is proposed.
4 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I rise to support the retention of the mandatory sentence for murder. I was the only member of the Select Committee of this House on murder and life imprisonment to feel deeply that it should be retained. Therefore I speak with humility, but I am very much against the present amendment.
The majority of evidence, including that given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, favoured its abolition. But we must not forget those whose evidence was strongly against its abolition. The Crown Prosecution Service was in favour of its retention. It believed it to be the appropriate retributive sentence for murder and that public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary. The service was strongly in favour of the power of recall throughout the murderer's life.
Ten murderers who have been released since 1968 have been convicted of a further homicide, as our report stated. A person who has killed once has demonstrated by his action that he is capable of killing again. At a time of increases in the number of violent crimes the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder would give all the wrong signals to the general public. Today many old people are in fear of violent crime. Many women fear domestic violence; that is perhaps the worst kind of all. If you cannot feel safe at home where can you feel secure?
I sat on the committee with a deep sense of sympathy for the victims of murder. By the very nature of the crime they can no longer be heard. Too often people's sympathy can turn to the murderer. The murderer should be justly heard, but, nevertheless, society should be properly protected against his possible repetition of violent crime.
A life sentence does not necessarily mean that the murderer will remain in prison for life. Later he will be released on licence under the supervision of a probation officer. If he behaves well he may remain free for the rest of his life. However, the safeguard lies in his being able to be recalled at any time by the Home Office if he again begins to exhibit violent symptoms, perhaps similar to those exhibited at the time of the first murder. It is in respect of the protection of the public from risk that life can mean life.
Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and 12 judges were in favour of the discretionary life sentence, seven were not. In Scotland a number of people wanted the mandatory sentence retained, including the Lord Justice General, representing the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland, and the Faculty of Advocates, as did a majority of the members of the Association of Chief Constables of England, Wales and Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation.
I believe deeply that the mandatory sentence provides the main distinction between murder and manslaughter. It should be retained in order to emphasise the inestimable value that society places on life from the point of view of deterrence and retribution but above all through the system of release
1566
on licence for the protection of the rest of society. I hope that the Committee will vote against the amendment.
Lord Richard: The proposal that the life sentence should no longer be mandatory in murder cases has received growing support inside and outside Parliament during the past 15 years. The change was recommended in 1975 by the Butler Committee on mentally abnormal offenders; in 1978 by the advisory council on the penal system; in 1980 by half the criminal law revision committee, which. I accept, was divided on the issue; in 1986 by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group; and recently by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, I agree that one should consider the victim; it would be absurd, foolish and immoral if we did not do so. However, it is worth pointing out that organisations such as Victim Support and the parents of murdered children are in favour of ending the mandatory life sentence as a way of dealing with murder. The reason is twofold. First, if the mandatory life sentence is ended there will be more precision as to the date upon which the offender will be released. Secondly, it may help to remove what many relatives of murdered victims now ask—why should the verdict be one of manslaughter rather than one of murder? There is a tendency for manslaughter verdicts to be brought in under the present system when a murder verdict would have been more appropriate.
It is also interesting to note that, as a result of the mandatory life sentence, the United Kingdom has more life sentence prisoners than all the other countries of Western Europe put together. A recent survey carried out by the Quaker Council for European Affairs found that the United Kingdom has 3,503 life sentence prisoners; it is 3,050 if Northern Ireland is excluded. That number compares with 2,688 for the whole of the rest of Western Europe. The main reason for that is simple. It is that in this country we have a mandatory life sentence while in many other countries a high proportion of murder convictions are followed by fixed-term penalties.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, was right in saying that the arguments in respect of this issue have been well rehearsed. The argument in favour of change is based upon one simple proposition—that murders vary greatly. They vary from those that are planned and calculated, or are for material gain or from political motives, to those that are committed under severe pressure and in emotional circumstances of great stress, including many domestic murders. As many Members who practise in the courts know, there are many cases in which the killing could hardly be said to be intentional. The intention may have been to cause grievous bodily harm to the individual, but perhaps to the regret of the person causing that harm the individual died.
One can be anecdotal about the issue. Perhaps I may give an example of a recent case in which I was involved at the Central Criminal Court. My client, who was an accessory before the fact to a murder, was convicted of murder. The difference in the circumstances between her participation in the crime and that of

1567
the person who committed it was enormous. She encouraged it, but the crime was committed by someone who stabbed the victim no fewer than 27 times, and not in the presence of my client. In those circumstances it appears that, although the law says that there should be a conviction for murder for an accessory before the fact indicted as a co-principal —and I accept that—the difference in moral turpitude between the two individuals is enormous.
In a situation in which there are different classes of murder although they may not be recognised by the law, and even if there are no legal categories in law de facto, they differ in terms of premeditation, viciousness, relationship to the victim, gain to the offender, the type of victim, whether the killing was intentional or accidental and the morality of the whole incident. As was said by Lord Kilbrandon in the case of the DPP v. Hyam, it is no longer true, if it ever was true, to say that murder as we now define it is necessarily the most heinous crime and heinous example of unlawful homicide.
I wish to make only two further points in favour of the amendment. The argument that mandatory life imprisonment is necessary for deterrence is unconvincing. The part which deterrence plays in an offender's calculations, particularly in murder cases where so many of the victims are known to the defendants, is much less than is perhaps commonly supposed. The most calculating killers plan to avoid detection and would do so whether life imprisonment was mandatory or discretionary. On the other hand, those who kill under emotional pressure do not normally plan sufficiently rationally for deterrence to play a significant part in their calculations. In the Australian state of Victoria the life sentence became discretionary in 1986 and it is interesting to observe that there has been no subsequent overall increase in the homicide rate.
In any event, in so far as life sentences have any deterrent effect, that is surely lessened by the widespread notion that, on average, they result in only about 11 years in prison. If life sentences were reserved for the worst cases, for which periods spent in prison are much longer than the average, that would no longer be the case, as your Lordships' Select Committee pointed out. The fact that life imprisonment is mandatory dilutes what should be the awe-inspiring nature of the life sentence.
Finally, perhaps I may echo the sentiments and opinions expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. Everybody knows that a life sentence as passed by judges in our courts these days is a pretence. It is a pretence because the defendant, the judge and the advocates do not believe that it will happen. I cannot believe that it is sensible to continue with a situation in which people being convicted of an extremely serious crime—in some circumstances the most serious crime of all—should be subject to a pretence at the precise moment at which their liberty is being considered.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I speak this afternoon in a dual capacity, both as a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and as a former chairman of the Parole Board.
I propose to deal with two issues as briefly as possible. The first is the current situation which faces the trial judge when a jury brings in a verdict of guilty. He will pass a life sentence in a case in which an armed robber has shot a security guard who is protecting a vehicle containing a large sum of money. He will pass a life sentence where a man murders a relative for financial gain. He will pass precisely the same sentence on a man whose wife has begged him to kill her because she is suffering acute pain and is in the final stages of a terminal illness. The fact is that in each of those cases there is either an intent to kill or an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, which are the essential ingredients of the crime of murder. How can a similar approach and sentence be justified in such diverse cases?
I expect it will be argued at the end of our debate by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that public opinion, which he will argue favours a return to capital punishment, cannot possibly support the change recommended by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I do not believe that his amendment, which I hope will be supported by the Committee, will create the degree of adverse opinion which the noble Lord the Leader of the House will put before the Committee.
I do not believe that the public would justify similar treatment in the three types of cases to which I have referred. However, there is an additional reason which was put by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. People know that the sentence of life imprisonment is bogus. They know perfectly well that in the overwhelming majority of cases the man or woman concerned will be released after a certain period of years. There is a belief that that period is nine years, but that is a misunderstanding because the period is rather longer. However, that is the view of a substantial section of public opinion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who was a very valued member of our Select Committee, said that in her view at a time of rising crime there would be grave public disquiet were this amendment to be carried. She said that the tragedy of the matter was that some people spent more time worrying about the defendants than the victims. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, reminded us (as did the noble Lord, Lord Nathan) the only groups of people who came before the Select Committee to put forward the views of the victims supported the Select Committee recommendations.
The National Association of Victims Support Schemes, which works intimately with people who have been brutally struck down by criminals, supported this proposal, as did that very small group the Parents of Murdered Children Group. We were all deeply affected by the evidence given. However, it is absolutely clear that those people supported the Select Committee's recommendations. That has been subsequently made clear.

1569
I now turn to a related matter dealt with briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, because I believe that it is important to look at the totality of the situation; that is, the release arrangements for life sentence prisoners. The present system of releasing life sentence prisoners is based on an arrangement which confers exclusive powers on Ministers. In my view, in recent years that has led to a number of quite significant abuses.
Until 1983, on the basis of a system introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary—and this applied at the time at which I was chairman of the Parole Board—there was a joint committee from the Parole Board and the Home Office which considered the cases of life sentence prisoners at the three to four year stage; that is, three to four years after sentence. The committee consisted of the chairman of the Parole Board, the vice-chairman of the Pa role Board, who was always a High Court judge, and a consultant psychiatrist together with Home Office officials.
That committee decided whether to refer the case of a prisoner to the local review committee, which exists in every prison in this country, in perhaps a further four or five years in the case of what could loosely be described as a fairly uncomplicated domestic murder. In far more serious cases the joint committee would refer the case back to itself in, say, another four or five years because it was riot prepared at that time to decide on a firm date for the commencement of the review process.
As I have indicated, in 1983 Mr. Brittan, who was then Home Secretary, abolished the joint committee. That matter was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on Second Reading of this Bill. M r. Brittan announced that in future Ministers and not the joint committee would decide the date of the first reference of a case to the local review committee at a prison. Your Lordships' Select Committee was able to measure the results of that change of policy. We discovered that there had been a quite extraordinary and, until the time of our inquiry, a highly confidential switch of policy. Until November 1983 —the time of Mr. Brittan's announcement about the abolition of the joint committee—the views of the Lord Chief Justice on tariff were, in my own direct experience, largely accepted both by Ministers and by the Parole Board. Indeed, I cannot recall any public dispute about the desirability of that policy.
After that date—in other words, after the end of 1983 when the policy was changed by Mr. Brittan—we know that in a large number of cases a junior Minister at the Home Office set a tariff higher than that recommended by the trial judge who, of course, is the only person who knows the direct facts of the case; and by the Lord Chief Justice who has immense knowledge and experience of life sentence cases having, I suspect, looked at the cases of several thousands of such prisoners.
The Select Committee discovered that in a six-month period in 1984—the first year of the new policy—Ministers increased the trial judge's recommendation in 80 cases out of 195, or roughly 40 per
1570
cent. of all the cases that came before them. In 1988 they established something of a record; they decided on a higher tariff in 63 out of 106 mandatory life sentences. It is a matter of considerable surprise that it was only when a Home Office witness, in answer to questions, admitted that that we discovered what had been going on.
It is remarkable that a junior Minister with no direct knowledge of a case other than a summary provided by officials can add a few years to a sentence without any established criteria. I asked about criteria when we discussed the Select Committee's report. I put the matter to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers: no answer came. Of course the decision is taken in secret. The prisoner knows neither the judicial recommendation nor the fact that the sentence has been altered by a junior Minister. I should be interested to know whether the judiciary were ever told what had been going on. I specifically put the matter to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He is always extremely helpful in answering questions asked by Members from any part of the Chamber. If he is not able to deal with the matter at once he is keen to write explaining the circumstances. Despite the question asked, no answer came from the noble Earl.
In my view that episode gives overwhelming strength to judicialising the entire process of the release of life sentence prisoners. As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, indicated, a judge could, under the terms of the amendment give a determinate sentence in an appropriate case and where there is a life sentence—under the terms of the amendment life sentences can still be handed down by judges after hearing the views of counsel—the judge would announce in open court the number of years that the prisoner would have to serve to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Ultimately, a tribunal presided over by a judge and independent of the judiciary would decide when he should be released.
We may be told that the public require that Ministers and not judges should make those decisions. In my view there is absolutely no evidence to justify that belief, which I am sure is sincerely held. No evidence has ever been put forward to justify it. In fact, I believe that precisely the reverse is true. To be blunt, I believe that the public have an infinitely greater confidence in judges than in Ministers—of any government—to make decisions on the length of sentences. That is why I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I intervene briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, perhaps gave the impression that all Scots are bloodthisty. I rise to assure the Committee that they are not and that I am not alone among the judges of the High Court of Judiciary in Scotland who would be and are in favour of the amendment.
The principle behind the amendment is neatly stated in the booklet, The Sentence of the Court, which came out with a foreword by the noble Lord the Leader of the House last autumn. It said of sentences:
"Properly reflecting the relative gravity of the offence, and fairness between different offenders, are more important aims in the individual case".

1571
I do not believe that that could be better put. I support the amendment.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I wish to speak briefly on behalf of Justice, the all-party organisation of lawyers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, when introducing the amendment, and say that I support the amendment. I do so diffidently from these Benches but with the greater confidence because I believe that the amendment gives effect to the admirable principle of the Bill that the punishment should fit the crime. The Committee would therefore act in keeping with the spirit of an approach to sentencing which has been followed by successive Home Secretaries and developed with imagination and sensitivity by Mr. John Patten, if the amendment were passed.
I believe also that it would be a substantial bonus that the accused and members of the public should know the real sentence which the court intends. It would be immensely healthy for all if society, the accused and the Government were aware of the views of the court as to the right length of sentence for the specific offence. I find the existing system somewhat hugger-mugger. It can only be justified if we take the view that someone sentenced to life imprisonment puts his life at the discretion of the state thereafter. I do not believe that that is so. I should like to see the ordinary principles of punishment applied. I do not believe that anyone can suggest that our judges are otherwise than well qualified by experience to carry out that role.
I shall say no more. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, if I may respectfully say so, with his unrivalled experience and authority, has twice stated with immense cogency the clear case for the amendment, as have other Members of the Committee. I hope that in the light of the debate the Government will quietly think again and come to the view that the amendment meets the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Hunt: In view of statements in the press today that several former chairmen of the Parole Board for England and Wales are in support of the amendment, I rise to identify myself as one of those former chairmen. I assure the Committee that I have no intention of repeating the arguments to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred: they have been rehearsed time and time again. However, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that I strongly agree with every word he said. Whether he needs that support after speaking with such powerful effect is another matter.
I should like to put one point only to the Committee, and it is reiteration. In contending that what is needed is the power of the courts to use their discretion in imposing a life sentence there is an overriding need to restore to the life sentence the gravity and credibility which has been largely lost. In my judgment it is extremely important that a court imposing the life sentence intends that that should be so. It does not follow that in the light of circumstances many years later there should not be a release on
1572
licence subject to recall. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, far too many people are serving so-called "life". It has become a figure of speech. There are well over 3,000 such people. It is meaningless and looks bad on the scoreboard compared with the record of other countries in Europe. It is important that we should limit the provision to the words intended.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Almost anything one can say at this stage of the debate is bound to be a statement of the obvious. Perhaps I may make two obvious points. The first is that the argument that a mandatory life sentence is uniquely necessary for cases of murder in order to prevent the premature release of the murderer who will then repeat his offence will not stand scrutiny for one moment. If it were a valid argument it would apply to all other grave offences. Rapists and armed robbers are just as likely to repeat their offences when released after their determinate sentences and are perhaps more likely to do so than murderers.
The other obvious point has surely been made already and I seek only to summarise it. The mandatory life sentence is a blunt instrument which prevents the courts recognising by the sentences that they pass the infinite gradations of gravity in the crime of murder. No one disputes that those gradations should be recognised. They are recognised by the dates of release determined by the Home Office. Should the distinction between the gravity of one offence and another be made by the courts in public or by the Home Secretary in private? The answer is obvious: it should be made by the courts in public.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may, as another non-bloodthirsty Scot, add a word or two in support of this progressive amendment. I draw the attention of the Committee to another aspect of the existence of this kind of sentence; namely, the practical difficulties faced by practitioners in the courts in getting people to plead guilty to homicide. I use that word in its broadest sense. There are many cases where there is overwhelming evidence that a homicide has occurred and that that homicide falls within the legal definition of murder. But, looking at it from a common sense point of view and from the background and circumstances of the case, very often even the Crown will concede that it is not murder as such.
The difficulty in getting an accused to plead guilty in the face of the overwhelming evidence is this: he will not plead guilty to a crime which leads to a life sentence being imposed, whereas if the life sentence were removed and there was at least the possibility of a determinate sentence, he might very well plead guilty. Another reason why a person does not plead guilty is that if he is sentenced to life imprisonment, that sentence often determines the prison in which the convicted man will serve his sentence. There are two compelling factors against an obviously guilty accused man pleading guilty to homicide in the form of murder as it presently stands.

1573
Where there are several accused charged with murder and it is abundantly clear that only one of them committed the murder and the trial proceeds with the other co-accused still in the dock being dragged through the trauma of prison and a court trial, there is always the risk that one or other of the co-accused who is in no way guilty of the murder will be dragged into a conviction by the jury on the basis of a purported art and part participation. That of itself may very well lead to a miscarriage of justice which will have to be unravelled over a long period of time. We have all had plenty of experience of that in recent days.
Finally, there is the effect that the public is put to unnecessary expense by unnecessary trials which could be avoided if the mandatory life sentence were done away with. If that is done then another matter arises. If the mandatory life sentence goes, then perhaps the word "murder" should be removed from the catalogue of crime in our society and we should start thinking of a general definition of causing death as justifiable or unjustifiable homicide, leaving the sentence at the discretion of the presiding judge.
In view of the tone of the debate and the opposition to this amendment, it is important to remember that the life sentence has not been done away with. It is still there as an implement for the judge to use in a necessary case. Accordingly, I speak in support of this amendment.
Lord Ackner: I should like to repeat the emphasis which has just been given by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that the theme running through the Bill before the Committee is that,
"convicted criminals … are punished justly and suitably according to the seriousness of their offences".
The very words are to be found in paragraph 2.1 of the Government's White Paper. The so-called just deserts rule is not exactly a revolutionary concept. In that White Paper the mandatory life sentence of imprisonment for the crime of murder was justified on the basis that it marked the heinousness of the crime. That description has since been upgraded.
When replying to the debate at Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who of course adds stature to any proposition which he enunciates, said:
"The Government believe quite simply that murder is the most heinous of all crimes".—[Official Report, 12/3/91; col. 164.]
A few sentences later, at col. 165, he stepped it up slightly by saying:
"However, the fact is that murder is the most heinous of all crimes".
That is an empty formula. Both in the report by your Lordships' Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment and in the two speeches which I have already wearied the Chamber with when this matter has been debated, there has been a reference to the observations made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in his judicial capacity when presiding over a murder case about two or three years ago, R. v. Howe. He said:
"Murder, as every practitioner of the law knows, though often described as one of the utmost heinousness, is not in fact necessarily so, but consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degree of culpability, ranging from brutal,
1574
cynical and repeated offences, like the so-called 'Moors murders', to the almost venial if objectively immoral, mercy-killing of a beloved partner".
Similar words were said about 15 years earlier by Lord Kilbrandon, as has already been said, in the case of R. v. Hyam. I have yet to understand the basis on which those judicial observations, which would be concurred with by every judge, are rejected by the Government. It totally overlooks the fact that in this country we have no categories of murder. We have tried in the past to isolate and define particularly serious categories of murder but failed to do so because the gravity of a murder cannot depend on one or two isolated factors. It may depend on many.
In paragraph 88 of the Select Committee's report, we pointed out that as the law now stands—and we suggested that it should be amended—a person who bona fide is acting in self-defence but kills when using more force than is justified is guilty o F murder. He is not guilty of manslaughter. How can one compare such a case with the terrorist who plants a bomb on an aeroplane intending to kill the 400-odd passengers but because of some happy coincidence it is discovered?
It has already been pointed out that murder includes not only the intent to kill but the intent to do serious bodily harm. How can one compare the murder which results from a man losing his temper in a public house—where the defence of provocation is not open to him—and jabbing his beer mug into the face of the person he is angry with, intending to do him bodily harm, but that is all, but it causes a haemorrhage and the man dies to the case of the sexual, brutal and sadistic attack by a man on a child? The two are not in the same bracket. To refer to all murder as being of the utmost gravity and the most appalling of all crimes is just not right. As has been pointed out, the result has been that the whole concept of the life sentence has become devalued. The public do not look on it in the manner in which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggested.
Finally, I make these two minor points. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to Amendment No. 76A, which we have not yet reached. It is concerned with the life sentence tribunal.
Lord Renton: I think the noble and learned Lord will recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, when beginning his remarks on the amendment which we are primarily discussing at the moment, referred to this later amendment.
Lord Ackner: Certainly I recall that, but I am seeking to suggest to the Committee that we should take one thing at a time. There is an answer, I hope, to what my noble friend raised and I should like to give it, if it is not given in due course. We are on a quite separate self-contained question.
In relation to Scotland, as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, I attended a session in Edinburgh with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, and others. At that session the Lord Justice General made apparent his anxiety that if the mandatory life sentence was removed in Scotland there would be a danger of an occasional far too lenient sentence being imposed which would cause public outcry and reduce

1575
the confidence in the administration of justice. Scotland does not have, as we do in this country, Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which enables lenient sentences to be the subject matter of an appeal so that they can, as a result, be put right. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said in his evidence to the committee, it would take very little time, particularly as it is essentially the High Court judges who deal with murder, for a tariff to be established and for guidelines to be established. The problem which my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned can be referred to at a later stage, because there is an answer to it.
If the theme of this important Bill is to be maintained then I respectfully submit that the amendment is irresistible.
The Earl of Dudley: I wish to say only a few brief words. Like many Members of the Committee I am very impressed by the weight and battery of legal opinion, from the Lord Chief Justice downwards, which is in favour of the removal of the mandatory life sentence. Looking at the matter from another point of view, it seems to me that there are only two categories of murder. One category is that in which the victim —perhaps it is a misnomer to call him the victim—welcomes the taking of life—the true mercy killing, the euthanasia killing. The other category of murder is that in which the victim had no wish to lose his life; indeed, where his life was taken from him as a matter of surprise and without any sense that that was going to happen. It is a tragedy for that person to lose his life.
That seems to me the only second category of murder. If that is so, surely there is no possible way in which murder of that kind can be qualified in the sense of the type of murder—how it took place, why it took place. The victim lost his life; which seems to me to run right across all categories of murder other than euthanasia killing. For that reason I cannot see that there is really any good sense at all in qualifying the type of sentence for that category of murder where the victim loses his life without wishing to do so as a true victim of murder.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask the Committee to accept my sincere apologies for not having been able to attend until this hour. I have been engaged in the courts. I was a member of the Select Committee and I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment.
I wish to make a short contribution as it is understood that the Government are fundamentally opposed to this amendment. As I understand it, the opposition on the part of the Government is based upon a curious process of reasoning with which I certainly am not able to agree. The reasoning goes that murder is the most serious of all crimes; then, as my noble friend the Leader of the House opines, anyone who takes a life should forfeit his own and that abolition of capital punishment, an effective deterrence, was only agreed as a trade-in for a mandatory
1576
life sentence. The reasoning continues that if one removes the mandatory life sentence and introduces a discretionary life sentence the public will not wear it, it removes the stigma and it removes an effective deterrence.
This reasoning lacks cogency. Not all murders are the most serious of crimes; for example, some domestic murders and the mercy killings. Apart from the armed robber—an important consideration—capital punishment affords little deterrence, and mandatory life of between nine and 11 years affords no deterrence whatever. The trade-in makes no sense today when some of us feel some relief that those recently acquitted on grounds of mistrial and false evidence are alive and not dead. The stigma lies in the conviction of murder but not in the sentence. Those convicted of murder are not the most dangerous of criminals so far as concerns the protection of the public.
It was concluded unanimously by the Select Committee that we could not put murder into categories, even if there were to be some statutory definition of murder. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, were of that opinion. If murder cannot be put into categories the only reasonable approach to sentencing is that proposed by the amendment. The Committee may know that the Parents of Murdered Children Group took the view that the mandatory life sentence afforded no deterrence and that they, with one voice, support this amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I support the amendment. I shall not rehearse all the arguments in favour of it. It would ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, that the real sentence that the court intends would be passed. I should like to add that, as very much the ignorant lay member of the Select Committee, I was very impressed by the detrimental effect that the indeterminant sentence had on all the people whose lives were touched by murder because of the uncertainty. The prisoners had no framework in which to live out their sentences. The prison officers found that it made their job more difficult. Both groups talked of the need to have light at the end of the tunnel.
Victim Support and the Parents of Murdered Children Group have already been quoted as supporting this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said that victims can no longer be heard. However, the families of the victims can be heard. Perhaps I may quote from page 501 of the oral evidence of our report where a member of Victim Support says:
"Why actually give it the term 'life' when it does not actually mean life … This contributes to people having perception of the criminal justice system as not being part of the real world and there being a gulf between the social and human issues around murder and how the law sees it. That makes people feel quite isolated from a system which they have always looked up to".
I should have thought that was a very good argument in favour of the amendments from that group of people whose lives have been so intimately touched by murder.
Lord Griffiths: I have served as a trial judge in the Queen's Bench Division for 10 years. I have also served as the vice chairman of the Parole Board. I have tried murders in all parts of England and Wales. They have been of an enormously differing variety of gravity. I have tried appalling terrorist planned slaughters of the innocent, such as the murder of the Israeli airline crew just off Grosvenor Square. I have, in the majority of the murders I have tried, been dealing with tragic breakdowns of domestic relationships when both the murderer and the victim were under the influence of drink. In each case I had to pass a life sentence. In all the domestic cases, I knew that a life sentence was a mockery because everyone, including the public, knew that the murderer would not serve a life sentence. But I was required, and did, write to the Home Secretary expressing my view of the offence and suggesting the deterrent and punitive element in the sentence.
I very much support the noble Baroness in her assertion about the difficulty it causes to a person being sent away, possibly to serve many years in prison—as they believe—without knowing that the judge has written to the Home Secretary suggesting a comparatively short period. In my experience such a suggestion is generally accepted. That seems to me to be a wholly unacceptable way to do things.
On the other hand, there have been cases, such as those I have instanced—notably the terrorist attack —which fully merited a life sentence and where such people should have served life sentences. However, I had no means of knowing whether that would be so. Therefore, to require the same sentence to be imposed on all who kill in circumstances which fulfil the definition of the crime of murder is to debase the life sentence.
I shall not rehearse all the other arguments which have been advanced in favour of the amendment and which were so ably put by other speakers. However, I should like to express my support for it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): I would be failing in my duty if I did not, at the outset of my response, pay tribute to members of the select committee. No one who has read the report can doubt the enormous amount of work which went into its preparation. It is therefore with reluctance, and also I should say with some humility, that I have to tell Members of the Committee that I simply cannot agree with the conclusions which have been reached.
I did not take part in the debate on Second Reading on 12th March, but I was present in the Chamber. I was slightly amused when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, say at one stage in his speech that the reluctance of the Government to abolish the mandatory life sentence was probably political. I suppose that it depends on what one means by the word "political". However, bearing all factors in mind, I believe that I probably have to plead guilty to that charge. But I do not feel any the worse for that.
The Government have to judge what the public reaction to abolition would be. The Government have done their best to make a proper judgment on the matter and they have concluded that the consequence of such a change would be extremely damaging to
1578
confidence in the criminal justice system and, in particular, in the judiciary. I shall shortly explain why that is so.
I also think that in the long run, if not in the short run, it would lead to pressure for people guilty of less serious murders (who under the changed regime would be the candidates for determinate rather than life sentences) to be kept in prison longer than they are at present. There would be continual allegations in the press that inadequate sentences were being passed by the courts. As a result of such pressures being brought on the courts, longer sentences would be imposed.
I do not believe that one can ignore the background to the introduction of the mandatory life sentence, to which reference has already been made. I trust that Members of the Committee will bear with me if I refer to it once again. Parliament was saying to those who did not approve of the abolition of capital punishment and to those who were nervous about the possible consequences of the abolition of capital punishment: "Don't worry. The unique nature of the crime of murder will still be marked by a special punishment. The murderer, because he has taken another life, will still surrender his own in a very important respect. He may not spend the rest of his days inside prison. He may be released on licence, but the sentence will last for life. He won't be released without the consent of the Home Secretary, who will be answerable to Parliament if things go wrong. And because the sentence will last for life, he will be liable to recall after his release if he does not behave and if it is thought that, once again, he has become a danger to the public."
That point was clearly made by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle in her speech. My noble friend Lord Alexander, whose expertise I admire—and I am sorry to have to disagree with him again—said that people did not put themselves in the hands of the state when they were sentenced to life imprisonment. But I believe that that is exactly what happens. The precise purpose of the sentence of life imprisonment is that, although they do not sacrifice their lives in the same way as they would if they were hanged, such people sacrifice their lives in the sense that whether they are released or not is a matter for the state.
I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that, having spent many years in the Home Office first as a Minister of State and then for a far shorter period of time as Home Secretary, I cannot accept that these powers in the hands of the Home Office have been abused. I believe that they have been honestly used by Ministers. Such Ministers no doubt had in the forefront of their minds their duty to do all that they could in order to give proper protection to the public.
I revert now to what I said earlier. I believe that the sort of explanation which Parliament gave to the public many years ago at the time of the abolition of capital punishment (when a life sentence was substituted for capital punishment) was of some comfort to the public. I think that we should pause for a long time before going back on those assurances. Then, having done so, we should ask ourselves

1579
whether anything might happen after the disappearance of the mandatory life sentence which would in fact weaken confidence in the criminal justice system.
It is in that context that I should like to refer to a debate which took place in this Chamber on 5th February 1980 on the proposal in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that a judge on passing a mandatory life sentence should be required, rather than just permitted, to recommend a minimum period for which the convicted person should remain in custody. Some noble Lords who are here today will remember that debate. Lord Fraser of Tullybelton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel—who I was glad to see in the Chamber earlier—both argued strongly against the proposition that judges should be required to state what they believed should be the minimum sentence that such a person should serve after being sentenced to a life term.
Lord Fraser said at col. 1248 of Hansard that in quite a number of cases the minimum period which the judge would have to state—that is, if he was mandated so to state—"might be very short". He referred to a stabbing case. It was not a mercy killing but a case of a young man who had stabbed another young man in a quarrel after there had been an argument about a girl friend, where he said that he would have recommended release in not less than two years. He said that if he had been required to say that that was his recommendation, that recommendation would have been greeted with uproar. Much better, he argued, that a formal sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed in that kind of case, and that it should be left to what he described as "the machinery" to see how long the young man should remain inside.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, made a similar point. The recommendation, he said, in the "run-of-the-mill" murder case would be nine, 10, or 11 years. That is far, far less than it would be in a really bad case, and the public would fix their attention not on the recommendation in the really bad case, but on those cases where a life sentence was passed and a recommendation was made for nine, 10, or 11 years. It would do no good whatever, said the noble and learned Lord, for confidence in the legal system. The noble and learned Lord was, with respect, quite right, and if he was right about mandatory recommendations what I am saying, with respect to this Committee, about the courts being given power to pass fixed terms of imprisonment must also be right.
Of course advocates of change concentrate on the true and rare mercy killing case, and they say that the law must be changed because of the alleged injustice in sentencing such a person to life imprisonment. Well, perhaps if there is an injustice that could be better met by a change in the definition of murder. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said during the course of his speech that the scope of murder was wide and led to distortion. I think he was saying that many people had not been tried or convicted of murder when murder had actually been committed, because those responsible did not want to have to face up to what would be the consequences for that person if that person were
1580
tried and convicted of murder. What he was saying, in effect, was that there are some who do indeed doubt whether we have got the definition of murder right.
Or course that was the logic of much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and it was almost expressly said by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I do not know whether or not the definition of murder ought to be changed, but certainly it would be one way of addressing this problem of injustice that has been referred to by some noble Lords. I do not know whether or not it is right to change the definition of murder, but I do know that we have a difficult question to ask ourselves.
If the definition of murder is still to cover mercy killing is it so terrible that a mercy killer should be sentenced to life imprisonment and then released pretty quickly by the Home Secretary? Would it not be far worse if the public were to feel that it was not being adequately protected, as a result of continual revelations in the press of allegedly weak judges giving two years in the kind of cases referred to by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Fraser and Lord Keith? Would it really inspire confidence in the administration of justice to allow, as suggested in paragraph 107 of the select committee report, the whole range of dispositions for murder from life imprisonment to probation, to a fine or an absolute discharge? I doubt it very much indeed.
The noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Richard, referred to the Parents of Murdered Children Group. I read a piece in The Times yesterday, and I have just been handed a copy of it now. Quite clearly those who said that, as a result of what they had been told, they were in favour of the select committee report were saying that what they disapproved of so much was that people were being released far too quickly. They were not saying that they were in favour of the select committee report because they wanted people to be released more quickly.
Whether a change in the law would bring the result that those people want—namely, people landing in prison and staying in prison for very much longer—is a big question that really has hardly been addressed at all today. I doubt it, and I think that they would have doubted it had they, for instance, read the speech of Lord Fraser and had known for how short a period some judges think people should stay in prison for murder. I am not talking of mercy killings; I am talking of the kind of case referred to by Lord Fraser —the case of a run-of-the-mill stabbing, you might think. For example, one young man stabbing another to death after a quarrel about a girl friend.
I agree with the view of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is certainly not a question of all the evidence presented to the Select Committee being one way. One might have thought that at times listening to some of the speeches. I have to agree with the view of the Crown Prosecution Service as expressed at paragraph 112A of the Select Committee's Report, that public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary.
I commend to the Committee the contention of the Crown Prosecution Service that

1581
"the public favours a strong reaction to the deliberate taking of one life by another",
and to allow individual judges the power to determine the appropriate sentence would often lead the public to question why a particular judge adopted a particular course of action.
Obviously one has to listen with the greatest respect to a speech when it is made by a Lord Chief Justice, and I have to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, that I listened with the greatest attention to what he had to say. He said that it was really no more difficult for a judge to assess the right sentence in a murder case than in any other case. I would suggest to the Committee that in the worst cases of murder it is incredibly difficult to assess the public reaction to the release of a murderer 20, 30, or 40 years on.
One has to remember that it is a part of this whole bundle of proposals that when a life sentence is imposed the trial judge will, at the trial, have to state how long a person should have to stay inside to deal with the penal aspects of the case. I am not talking about danger to the public now, but I am saying again that it is incredibly difficult for anybody to assess now what the public reaction to the release of a terrible murderer will be 20, 30, or 40 years on. My noble friend Lord Renton is right to say that at the time of sentencing it is impossible to know how a person's character will have developed 20 or 30 years on.
There is another real difficulty. What is suggested is that in the worst cases life imprisonment would be passed with the judge specifying the penal term with eligibility for parole at the half-way mark. I wonder what the Committee has in mind for the really bad, wicked beyond belief, type of case. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, states his view in Amendment No. 69C. However, I do not think it begins to equate with what the public expects and is entitled to expect. The public would be absolutely amazed to hear that anyone thought that a penal sanction of 20 years, reduced as a result of the operation of parole to 10 years, could be the maximum penal sanction in a murder case.
The Earl of Longford: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He keeps returning to the idea of public reaction, but I believe in justice. That is what this House stands for and certainly what the judiciary stand for. They do not look over their shoulders all the time at what the Sun newspaper tells them.
Lord Waddington: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, neither should we be so arrogant as to say that we know better than everyone else what is justice. Parliament has always paid regard to what ordinary people think in deciding how sentences should be passed in the courts. That has always been the case. It will be a sad day indeed if we, from our Olympian heights, decide that 10 years is an adequate punishment for murder. That could not possibly equate with the views of an ordinary man in the country. I should have thought that the public may have in mind, in the wicked beyond belief case, a penal term in the region of 60 years. After all, that would only be 30 years after the present or proposed system of parole has been brought into effect. Sixty years
1582
would not be thought extraordinary at all. However, would judges in this country be comfortable with having to indicate sentences of that length? I do not know of a single sentence of that length ever having been passed by a judge.
Members of the Committee must recognise that we are entering uncharted territory here. If we enter the territory where judges either have to state determinate sentences or pass life sentences and then a penal sanction which is subject to parole, it may be that certain judges have a very different idea from members of the public as to the appropriate determinate sentence or the penal sanction to be stated when the life sentence is imposed.
It is for the proposers of the amendment to say how, facing these difficulties, they argue that public confidence would in no way be dented by the abolition of the mandatory life sentence and, incidentally, why we would not be forced down the road of inordinately long determinate sentences for some less serious cases as happens in America.
I fully appreciate the care with which the select committee considered the issue. I can assure the Committee that the Government considered with great care the arguments advanced before announcing their conclusion in paragraph 6.15 of the White Paper. Of course, murders vary in their heinousness; of course, there are other terrible crimes. But most people look upon the taking of another person's life as uniquely horrible. That is why, when the death penalty was abolished, it was decided that the alternative sentence put in its place had to be one which continued to mark out the unique wickedness of the crime of murder. That is why we have the mandatory life sentence.
When the restoration of the death penalty has from time to time been considered in another place, it has always been voted upon against the background that the alternative to the death penalty is the mandatory life sentence. I believe that if we abandoned the mandatory life sentence for murder, it would greatly damage public confidence in the criminal justice system and its ability properly to punish the most grave of crimes. I agree with my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle that all the wrong signals would go out to the public. I cannot advise the Committee to accept these amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down at the end of his revealing speech, is he seriously trying to justify the retention of the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder on the basis that there is so little public confidence in the actions of the judiciary in this country that the effects of their decisions have to be kept secret from the public? If that is his argument, it is a pretty poor one.
Lord Waddington: I have never heard such an extraordinary misrepresentation of what I said. If tomorrow the noble Lord cares to read carefully what I said, I am sure he will realise that he is not doing justice to my speech.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether he has read paragraph 178 of the Select Committee report. The last part reads:
"After the introduction of a discretionary sentence for murder, the Committee anticipate that the average length of time served under a life sentence would be considerably longer than it is now. The Committee expect that their proposals will lead to very lengthy penal sanctions being set in the most grave cases. In some cases, this may result in imprisonment for the rest of the prisoner's life".
Lord Waddington: I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the noble and learned Lord when he came to see me at the Home Office some months ago. We had to disagree then, and I disagree now. That may have been what the select committee thought would be the consequences of its proposals. However, there is much evidence to show that the select committee was entirely wrong. I gave some of that evidence today and some is clearly contained in the speech made by Lord Fraser some years ago and that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, to which I also referred.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will forgive me for intervening. Before he finally sits down, will he deal with two short questions? He said that he did not like arrogance. Would the Government feel that it is not arrogant to go against the advice, first, of one of your Lordships' select committees which has made the recommendations to the House, and secondly, the Lord Chief Justice, two Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other judges who have spoken in this debate?
Lord Waddington: I cannot agree with the proposition that a select committee's report—however illustrious the Members who composed the report—should be accepted rather than the view of the whole House. It is now for the whole House to decide whether the Members of the select committee, who tried hard, at the end of the day came out with the right result. I happen to believe that they did not. The noble Lord knows full well that although a majority of judicial opinion may be on the side of the select committee, a sizeable minority disagrees with him.
Lord Nathan: It would be quite wrong for me to attempt either to summarise the points which have been made or to make a long speech at this stage of the evening. I do not propose to do either. All that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says in this Chamber is given careful consideration, but the noble Lord the Leader of the House went a little far in suggesting that the noble Earl's proposal, which has not yet been considered by the Committee, with regard to parole in the context of another amendment, is already the law. It has yet to be considered and no doubt will be, most carefully, when the time comes.
One can have many views on the definition of murder. In the committee we debated long and hard whether it was possible with clarity and certainty to define the crime of murder in such a way as to create the kinds of categories which, from this debate, it appears may be desirable. We reached a negative conclusion on that. As I said in my opening remarks, we therefore decided that the way to deal with the
1584
matter was to give to those responsible for sentencing the discretion to impose a sentence appropriate to the murder and not to attempt a task which we found was an impossibility.
It is rather late after the debates of 1957 and 1965 to go back to the origin of the mandatory life sentence in the context of the abolition of capital punishment. Those debates took place a long time ago and many of us were not concerned with these matters at that time.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to the Home Secretary's responsibility to Parliament in relation to the administration of justice. He was correct to refer to that. The difference between us is that I consider that the Home Secretary's responsibility to Parliament is in relation to the administration of justice and not in relation to the punishment meted out to certain prisoners. The latter measure has been avoided in all civilised societies over centuries and is much to be deplored.
I return to the three main headings under which I made my opening remarks. I believe the mandatory sentence leads, and has led, to vesting in the Executive, which operates in secrecy, the power of sentencing individual prisoners. I believe it is most unfortunate and objectionable that that should be the case. Further, the scope of the crime of murder is wide. I suggest that however much attention is paid to the possibility of redefining it under expert guidance— perhaps of the noble Lord the Leader of the House —it will still be wide because it is not only the crime itself but the circumstances in which it is committed which must be relevant to an appropriate sentence. Therefore I do not believe that process provides a satisfactory route to follow.
The fact that the crime of murder is wide in scope —no one in this debate has questioned that—and that life sentence is at present mandatory has led to the distortions to which I have referred. I believe that public confidence in the administration of justice in this field would be enhanced by the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. All of us wish to promote public confidence. The question between the noble Lord the Leader of the House and other Members of the Committee is where public confidence lies. I have no doubt myself that public confidence in the administration of justice would be greatly enhanced by the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. I have said quite enough at this stage and the time has come to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 177; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Ardwick, L.

Acton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Addington, L.

Attlee, E.

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Aldington, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Beloff, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Birk, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Annan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

1585

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kissin, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lane, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brightman, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Longford, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lowry, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lytton, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McNair, L.

Carnock, L.

Mais, L.

Carter, L.

Marsh, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mayhew, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mersey, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monkswell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B.

Munster, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Derwent, L.

Nathan, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nelson, E.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elibank, L.

Oram, L.

Erroll, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pennock, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Quinton, L.

Foot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rees, L.

Galpern, L.

Richard, L.

Geddes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Rodney, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Greenway, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Griffiths, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Slim, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Havers, L.

Stockton, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hertford, M.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howe, E.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Terrington, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hunt, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tryon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Underhill, L.

Jacques, L.

Varley, L.

Jay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Wharton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wigram, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilberforce, L.

1586

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Willis, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Kimball, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Belstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Blake, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Layton, L.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Orkney, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dudley, E.

Salisbury, M.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gainford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ullswater, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wise, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wolfson, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 69A:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment
.—(1) Where a court sentences a person to imprisonment for life it shall state in open court—

(a) its reasons for passing that sentence; and

(b) the sentence of imprisonment the court would have passed ("the penal term") if it had not been open to it to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determinate number of years' imprisonment.

(2) The penal term shall be subject to appeal against sentence in the same manner as the sentence of imprisonment for life actually passed on the offender.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 69A I shall also refer to Amendments Nos. 69B to 69D, 76A to 76F and 77A to 77C which have been grouped together. That is a convenience for debate but I should state that Amendment No. 69A which relates to judicial procedures to fix the penal term and Amendments Nos. 76A, 76B and 76D relating to judicial procedures as to release are not mutually

1587
dependent and should therefore be decided upon separately. Amendments Nos. 77A to 77C are consequential.
Amendment No. 69A implements one of the recommendations of the Select Committee. The clause introduced by the amendment would apply whenever a court awards a life sentence, whether for murder or for any of the other offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum. These include, in England and Wales, manslaughter, armed robbery, arson and some sexual offences and, in Scotland, all common law crimes. Approximately 20 per cent. of life sentences are imposed for offences other than murder.
There are two main sets of circumstances which justify the imposition of a life sentence for murder and both may be present in any particular case. The life sentence should be available both for especially heinous murders and for those where there would be a degree of uncertainty about the risk, by reason in particular of a prisoner's mental condition, of releasing him at the end of a determinate sentence. Those circumstances conform broadly to the criteria for imposition of life sentences for crimes other than murder which presently prevail.
Where a life sentence is awarded the judge should not only specify his reasons for imposing that sentence rather than a determinate sentence but should also specify in open court the period of years which he considers necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence; namely, the penal term. When the judge imposes a life sentence on the ground of risk the penal term will be the period of years he would have imposed in the absence of that factor. Where he imposes a life sentence because of the heinousness of the offence the penal term should be the period of years he would have imposed if the life sentence were not available to him. The reason why the judge should not take account of the risk of serious harm to the public is because that risk is taken care of by the nature of the life sentence itself.
The penal term set by the judge should not be subject to revision by Ministers but it should be subject to appeal by either side, as in the case of sentences for all serious crimes since 1988. That judicial and open process for setting the penal term would be a substitute for the present system, which has given rise to much criticism.
Life imprisonment does not usually mean imprisonment for the remainder of the convicted offender's life. The procedures currently used in England and Wales, which have been much canvassed today, are that after a mandatory life sentence has been awarded in cases of murder the trial judge, through the Lord Chief Justice, writes privately to the Home Secretary recommending the period of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Neither the public nor the prisoner is or ever becomes aware of the contents of that letter. The Home Secretary or, as the select committee was informed to its surprise, a junior Minister determines the period of detention, often referred to as the tariff.
The select committee was given evidence by the Home Office that during the six months from April to September 1988 in 63 of 106 mandatory life cases the Home Secretary set a higher tariff than that privately indicated to him by the trial judge. In 34 cases he set the same and in nine cases a lower tariff. Further statistics provided by the Home Office, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his earlier remarks, indicate that changes of a similar character were made in 1984 and 1986 although the figures are somewhat different.
Neither the Home Secretary nor a junior Minister has heard the evidence or seen the witnesses. The procedure is carried out in secrecy, not only as regards the judge's recommendation but also as to the reasons for the tariff decided upon by the Home Secretary. It is therefore impossible to know whether there is any degree of consistency as between one prisoner and another. That inevitably leads to a sense of dissatisfaction and injustice, not only among the public but among prisoners themselves who are left in a state of total ignorance.
It is not a system which can be modified or tinkered with. It requires radical change; hence the provisions of the amendment. These place responsibility for setting the penal term with the trial judge in open court where counsel on each side can be heard on the matter and the decision is made in the open so that consistency and justice between one prisoner and another will be in the public domain. That decision will be open to appeal by either side, as it has been since 1988 in the case of sentences for all serious crimes. The danger, perceived by some, of too lenient sentences will then be open to review. It is perhaps strange to make that point as much criticism of the judiciary is directed to the too long prison sentences which judges award rather than the fact that their sentences are too lenient.
I believe that this procedure is correct. As the grouping has taken place and as it may assist in abbreviating the debate, I shall now turn to the quite separate amendment relating to release decisions. However, I should say at this point that the amendment to which I have so far referred stands on its own feet and is not dependent on that related to release decisions. Nor is the amendment relating to release decisions dependent on the amendment to which I have just referred. I now refer to Amendments Nos. 76A, 76B and 76D, all of which relate to the proposed Life Sentences Review Tribunal. They would implement the recommendations of the select committee relating to release decisions for those serving life sentences.
At the expiration of the penal term the question whether the prisoner should be released or further detained rests upon a consideration of whether the prisoner would present a risk of reoffending on release. The select committee considered that the decision should be an entirely judicial one in which the Home Secretary and the Parole Board should not be involved. We considered that the court system is not well adapted to consider those matters and therefore recommended that a judicial tribunal should be established to consider life sentence release and recall

1589
decisions after the expiry of the penal term. The tribunal should be composed of a High Court judge, a consultant psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. That point is dealt with in Amendment No. 76D and would be incorporated in a new schedule.
Paragraph 8 of that new schedule provides that the Lord Chancellor may make rules of procedure by statutory instrument. The Committee will note that, under paragraph 8(2) of the new schedule, the rules may make provision for providing to the prisoner copies of documents relevant to his case and relevant oral information except when the tribunal considers that it would not be in the public interest to do so.
Further, the rules may make provisions for the tribunal to furnish reasons for its decisions. Those provisions tie in with those which would be in the new clause in Amendment No. 76B, particularly subsection (5) which prescribes that the prisoner shall have certain rights. Those would include making representations to the tribunal and being legally represented, and that he should be given information to enable him to exercise those rights effectively. The Committee will know that at present, under the release procedures, the prisoner has none of those rights in respect of the Parole Board or the Home Secretary.
Under Amendment No. 76B, the Home Secretary would be bound to refer the case of every life prisoner to the tribunal for review not later than two years before the expiry of his penal term. The tribunal may direct the release on licence of a life prisoner convicted of murder—but only on licence in cases of murder—so decisions relating to the release of murderers are, as at present, that release can only be on life licence. That licence can be revoked, as at present, by the Secretary of State who in that event would refer the recalled case to the tribunal for further consideration. At present, the Secretary of State may recall a prisoner released on licence and must refer the case to the Parole Board, so the position is not radically different in that: respect.
If the tribunal determines not to direct the release of a life prisoner his case must be referred back to the tribunal for further consideration within a maximum period of three years. The object of that is to ensure the continued detention of the prisoner after the penal term is regularly reviewed, as required by the European Convention on Human Rights.
It seemed appropriate and convenient, while dealing with those provisions relating to life prisoners convicted of murder, to deal at the same time with procedures relating to the release of life prisoners convicted of an offence other than murder, particularly in the light of the condemnation of the United Kingdom by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne and others and the earlier case of Weeks.
Therefore, in the context of life prisoners convicted of an offence other than murder we provide in the amendment that the tribunal may direct, under Clause 2(b) in Amendment No. 76B, that he be released on licence or unconditionally and, in the case of such life prisoners, may direct the length of time that the licence is to remain in force. The Committee may wish to look particularly at subsection (7) in that context. If the
1590
tribunal gives no direction as to the length of the licence it shall review the licence at three yearly intervals and either terminate the licence or direct the time for which it is to remain in force. The purpose of the provisions relating to life prisoners is to ensure that their further detention is kept constantly under review.
I emphasise yet again that the provisions are not applicable to life prisoners convicted of murder because the licence will continue for life and the prisoner will therefore be subject to recall throughout his life, as at present. The amendments will bring under judicial control functions presently exercised in his discretion by the Home Secretary. They will bring the law and practice in this country into conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. I understand that I should not move the other amendments at this stage. I shall confine myself to moving Amendment No. 69A so that it is possible to move the other amendments at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69A, Amendment No. 69B:
After Clause 22, Line 7, leave out from; "life") to end of line 9.
The noble Earl said: I rise to offer general support for what may be called the Nathan principles—the principles that were unfolded in the committee's report and presented by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his allies. If those general ideas were given effect to, life prisoners would be treated more humanely. I do not say that they are all treated badly now, but in my experience some are treated abominably. To anyone who asks me whether I speak up for the victim, perhaps I may point out that I first proposed a Motion in favour of the victim 25 years ago and that I introduced a Bill which had a Second Reading here 10 years ago. If anyone in the Chamber can say that they have done more for victims than I have, let them inform me of it. There is no clash, in my view, between trying to do the Christian thing on behalf of prisoners and victims.
In the amendments I deal with that residue of prisoners who are given life sentences under the arrangements which I hope are likely to be established. I shall not therefore deal with all those who receive determinate sentences. I shall deal only with those who receive life sentences. I do not intend to cover the cases of those who might be unjustly convicted; nor do I intend to examine the cases of those who are, or may be thought to be, mentally disordered. These are important issues, but they do not arise now. I take for discussion, to focus thought, the prisoners who have committed grave crimes, perhaps very grave crimes, which under the new arrangements will attract life sentences. Some people may say that such offenders are beneath consideration. I hope that that will not be said by many in this Chamber. A few old-timers may remember Lord Chief Justice Goddard saying in the 1950s debates on capital punishment that such a man should be destroyed. That view may be held in some quarters. For perhaps

1591
rather perverse reasons I read the Sun newspaper every day and that may be the view of many of those who write for that newspaper. I am aware that that view exists. I regard it with absolute horror.
I thought I heard in the debate two days ago a noble Lord refer to prisoners in general as villains. I thought I heard him say it twice, but my hearing is somewhat defective. If we are to speak of prisoners as villains, we are a long way from civilised discussion. However, I do not believe that that is the general attitude of this Chamber.
Most people, whether Christians, humanists or whatever, regard every prisoner, even one who has done terrible things, as of infinite worth because he is a human being. In Christian terms he is infinitely dear to God. But even if we leave God out of it and consider the matter simply in humanist terms, he is someone infinitely precious. Most of us, again whether Christian or humanist, think of them as sinners. The attitude that we are the goodies and they are the baddies who are to be trodden under is not one which will commend itself to the Chamber.
Nevertheless, I talk now of people who have done terrible things. For the sake of argument I refer to men who have committed several murders. I do not refer to any individual although I have known many murderers. Let us assume someone has committed a number of murders. I agree that in that case a life sentence is the only sentence which is appropriate in human terms.
I am ready to agree that when the penal term is concluded and that man comes up for judicial review he could still be regarded as too dangerous to release. In theory it could happen—although I do not personally believe that it ever has happened—that such a person time after time would come before the judicial tribunal and be considered too dangerous to release. That would certainly apply to a number of patients in Broadmoor, for example. Admittedly, there are some people who are too dangerous ever to release. I know one who was in prison for 20 years. He is no longer a prisoner but a patient in a special hospital; he does not expect ever to be released. Such people exist.
However, let us leave aside the mental cases. In theory it could happen that when the time arrived for someone who had done terrible things to come before a tribunal it was found that he was too dangerous to release. I am ready to accept that as an outside possibility, but it is guarded against by the arrangements for the tribunal. The whole question of dangerousness is covered by the tribunal. So we are left asking ourselves what should be the penal period before the man or woman is allowed to go before the tribunal. This is a matter over which people will differ as to the number of years. Personally, when I go before Saint Peter, which is likely to happen to me rather sooner than to most Members of the Committee that I see around me—perhaps in the almost immediate future—and he asks, "What did you do down there?", if I were to reply, "I played my part in sending a man to prison for many more years than 20", then I should expect to receive an even
1592
longer spell in purgatory than would normally come my way. In other words, I should be ashamed of myself.
We are laying down rules which will be applied by judges and in that sense we are making the decisions ourselves. We have to ask ourselves: do we honestly think that we ourselves are so virtuous that we are entitled to say that someone else is so bad or wicked that he or she must serve 20 years before even being allowed to go before a tribunal that will decide whether he or she is dangerous. I view that with contempt. I do not despise any human being. I am not in a position to do so. But I despise certain positions, and I view that one with contempt. I therefore believe that at whatever period one places the exact number of years I would say 20 years but others may have a different view—there must be a reasonable limit. After that limit, if the question arises of whether the man is dangerous, then the tribunal in a judicial spirit should decide it.
There are two other amendments tabled in my name. One seeks to remove words from the second part of the earlier amendment. Possibly it is simply my lack of intelligence. If so, it is a lack of intelligence shared fairly widely. I asked a number of people about it. None of them could make head or tail of the latter part of the amendment. I see one of the greatest of the Law Lords nods his head. If he cannot understand it I am quite certain that I am not able to do so. Perhaps we would be happier without those words. It would be a simple, straightforward issue. One asks how much the crime merits and after a certain number of years the tribunal will decide whether it is safe to let the person out.
Perhaps I may say without offence that on some programme the other day I was asked whether I believed that there were evil men or women. I replied no; I personally did not think that there were evil men or women but that there were some men and women who did evil things and that we had to protect ourselves against them. I think that in this country we are, possibly in a high-minded way, doing something which in my eyes is evil. We are keeping people in prison for 30 years. By chance I met someone in prison the other day who had been there for 50 years. I could hardly believe it, but it was true. We are keeping people in prison, to my personal knowledge, for 30 years at least, without there being any chance for them to make representations to anybody and without any reasons being given. I regard that as wicked.
I move the amendment in that spirit. I am not dogmatic about the number of years being 20. It seems to me an outside limit but it can be altered. Perhaps my other proposals can be improved upon at this or some later stage. I stand absolutely upon the principle that if we are to have a tribunal we must know when it will meet and that it must meet within a foreseeable time. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take it that we are discussing at the same time the other amendment in the name of the noble Earl. It is not for me to speak on behalf of the select committee. All I can say is that we examined with some care whether a maximum should be put upon the penal term. We came to the

1593
conclusion that it should not. That is my view. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the maximum of the penal term to be 20 years. One has only to look at the character of some of the possible offences which might have to be examined to see that that is clear.
Let us take a case which we all know—the Lockerbie tragedy. Could one say in the case of an incident in which 200 or more people lost their lives that the maximum penal term would be 20 years? That would be wholly unacceptable. For that reason, speaking entirely for myself, I should be opposed to it.
Perhaps I may deal with one other matter at the same time. As I understand it we are now discussing both the noble Earl's amendments in the context of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. As the noble Lord pointed out in his speech, one benefit would be that the creation of the tribunal would lead to the implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Messrs Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. That decision was made at the end of last year but all concerned, including those in the Home Office, knew perfectly well on the basis of their experience before the European Commission of Human Rights that the Government were bound to lose their case. Those three men were awarded sentences of life imprisonment for offences other than murder. The European Court of Human Rights held that the decision on their release would be a matter for a judicial tribunal.
As I understand it, when pressed upon the matter in the House of Commons the Government indicated that they had not had time to consider the matter adequately. Some of these men have now been held in custody for very substantial periods of time. One of them is 74. It seems to me wholly unreasonable that months after a decision of the European Court of Human Rights the House of Commons suggested that it was too soon to make a decision. That decision would not concern the mens's release; a tribunal might well decide not to release them because of their mental conditions. It seems quite wrong that where a clear decision has been taken by the European Court of Human Rights, and where we have a treaty obligation to implement those decisions, that in the House of Commons, the Government's position was that it was too soon to legislate.
The creation of a tribunal will deal with the situation arising from those three life sentence prisoners, none of whom was convicted of murder. I welcome the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Stallard: I briefly support what has been said by previous noble Lords. I speak not from a legal standpoint but from my experience with and interest in these cases. It may be known that for many years I have corresponded with various Home Secretaries in different governments about transfer of prisoners from one prison to another in order to minimise the suffering of relatives who have to travel long distances; and for reasons associated with benefits, social security passes, warrants and so on. I have come across the problems of consistency which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
1594
In the Northern Ireland situation, for instance, I know a number of prisoners during whose sentences the criteria for parole applications have been changed at least six times since 1973. In one case six prisoners received the same sentences at the same court at the same time by the same judge. Five of them have been released at different times under different criteria. The five having been transferred to another prison to be near their relatives, and so on, were released. The sixth prisoner sought parole all the time for the same reasons under the old criteria. Because new criteria are still in operation from last year, he has been caught by the latest criteria. His next date for review will be 1995. That means that by the time his appeal is dealt with and he has a release date he will have served almost 25 years. There was no mention in public of how long the service was to be. That is the second point with which I agree. It should be stated publicly at the time. People should know the tariff. "Tariff" is the word used mainly in these considerations. The Lord Chief Justice assessed the tariff for one of the prisoners, and that operated. I assumed that the same assessment applied to the others but I have been unable to find out. There is no public knowledge. It is almost like a raffle.
It creates a certain incredibility and takes away the confidence of people in the system of justice if such changes can occur at the whim of someone far away and for whatever reasons. For a number of reasons it may be necessary to keep one fellow in prison longer than another; or, because circumstances outside might be dangerous, one person may be re leased but not another. But nobody is told why. It is just stated, "Because of changing criteria you will not now be released. Your next date for review is 1995, and God knows what will happen after that".
I do not believe that that is good enough. I support the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I support Amendment No. 69A. I do not refer to the other grouped amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that they should be considered separately. I ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal to consider the matter sympathetically.
For me, the amendment has the great attraction of justice being seen to be done. The sentence is stated in open court with reasons and is subject to appeal. In placing the case before a higher court, the prisoner has to face the possibility of a stiffer sentence as well as the possibility, and the hope in his mind, of greater leniency. Whether appealing or not, the prisoner knows where he or she stands over the minimum term and the reasons why that term has been set. After that the matter of risk has to be considered either, as at present, by the Home Secretary or by the judicial tribunal suggested in future amendments. The matter of risk is, to a certain extent, in the prisoner's own hands to demonstrate reform and therefore on release to be deemed free of risk in particular after the initial period of supervision. Then he or she may with good behaviour be free on licence for the remainder of their lives.
I know that the amendment is connected with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the subsequent action of the Government in

1595
considering their response to that decision. Whatever action is finally contemplated, I hope that my noble friend will consider sympathetically the suggestion outlined in Amendment No. 69A as it stands in its entirety with its strong sense of natural justice.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I too support the amendment. As a member of the select committee, the feeling that we experienced in every prison we visited was of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge about what was happening which added to the difficulties in the prison. We gained that feeling from prison governors, prison officers and prisoners. They did not know what was happening. Prisoners did not know when they were to get out. They did not know the Home Secretary's recommendation.
I suggest it is appropriate that those matters should be known by the prisoner. There is a move now to openness in judicial decisions and in decisions generally. I suggest that that must be encouraged. The concept has been published recently by the governor of one of the biggest Scottish prisons. Dr. Coyle, the Prison Governor of Shotts and previous governor of Peterhead Prison has just had published a book in which he states:
"Justice is a delicate flower; justice for those in prison is the most delicate flower of all. One of the basic criteria for justice is that it should not be arbitrary, that it should be based on premises which are open to scrutiny. We face a real danger that many of the processes in our penal system are not open to that scrutiny".
The select committee found that to be the case in particular in relation to decisions about how long those sentenced to life should serve and the deep feeling of injustice between one life sentencer and another that A got out and B did not. If the dates were given in open court, and were open to appeal, it would be a much better system.
I turn to Amendment No. 69B tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am not sure what its effect would be. Let us suppose that the relevant words have been removed from Amendment No. 69A. If I were then to be sentencing someone to life imprisonment I should have to announce the sentence of imprisonment that I would have passed if it had not been open to me to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life. By taking out the reference to danger I should have to consider what sentence was appropriate considering the prisoner's danger to the public. I believe that would have precisely the opposite effect to what I suspect the noble Earl wishes to achieve.
I have in mind the case of a man convicted of murdering old ladies after raping them. Psychiatric evidence showed that he had sexual urges which would continue until fairly late in his life. He was then 20 years of age. If in sentencing that person under the proposed set-up I took that matter into account I should have to pass a sentence of 40 or 50 years because I could not take into account the danger. However, I must take into account the danger; I could not ignore it. Therefore, the noble Earl's amendment appears to achieve precisely the opposite of that which I presume he intends—
The Earl of Longford: I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying. However, with his great legal acumen, and assisted by his noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, can he not provide at the next stage a better and more intelligible form of wording which would be acceptable to most Members?
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend could make anything more intelligible to anyone. I am not certain that I can. Perhaps if the word "if" were inserted in line 7 before the word "it" the issue would be clearer. I give the Committee no promises of clarifying the language. In general, I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Lane: I venture to add a personal note in respect of Amendment No. 69A. I must deal with all life sentences, both mandatory and discretionary, and with the prisoners who are about to be released. All those cases come through my hands. The task involves a consideration of between 300 and 400 cases per year. I know that many judges agree with me in feeling most unhappy about the way the system operates behind closed doors. The only advantage of my considering the cases is to try to achieve consistency in the length of time which people must stay in prison for committing various crimes. It is a consistency that I should rather not have to operate. The procedure should be carried out openly, but that is not the case.
Lord Ackner: I support the amendment. As a one-time advocate I point out to the Committee the difficulty in which the advocacy now finds itself. The passing of an automatic life sentence makes mitigation purposeless. If there is to be a life sentence that is an end of the matter. However, there has grown up a practice that some judges, conscious of the fact that the present situation is highly unsatisfactory, allow mitigation. However, the prisoner does not know the impact of his counsel's advocacy upon the court, nor does counsel know. It is an absurdity that occasionally one is given the opportunity to put forward mitigation without knowing the consequences. The proposal merely brings reality into the process of this class of sentencing which, as it now stands, is totally unreal.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was right in making those comments. It is a sterile exercise when at the end of a case where one's client has been convicted, and one knows that he is to be sentenced to life imprisonment, the judge says, "Do you have anything to say to me in relation to what I might be writing to somebody hereafter?". One's answer might then be, "Please do not be too hard on him", or "It was not a particularly dreadful murder", or "He does not have a bad record". One then sits down having no idea whether the statement had any impact on the judge or what was in his mind. The exercise is futile and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, drew the Committee's attention to it.
The EC is fond of producing words. A word that it produced which was new to me was "transparency". I

1597
believed that it was connected with stamps but now know that it is a concept of viewing Executive actions, or indeed those of anyone, so that they are visible, accountable and can be scrutinised. The arguments in favour of greater transparency in the operation of this part of the criminal justice system appear to be overwhelming. I do not propose to repeat them.
I conclude with a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made in 1966 in another place when he was Quintin Hogg. The Parole Board had first been set up and he was commenting on whether its proceedings would involve a sufficient element of natural justice. He said:
"Natural justice involves this more than anything else: that where a man's most intimate rights are to be adjudicated upon … he had the right to be heard … If there were any dispute between him and the authorities which had not solved itself on the record, then he had a right to appear before his judges … That essentially introduces into the proceedings a quasi-judicial element, because it involves the hearing of two sides".
At present sentencing decisions are made by Ministers behind closed doors for reasons that we do not know and in respect of which the defendant is not entitled to he represented or hardly entitled to be informed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I sincerely ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to keep an open mind about Amendment No. 69A. I am not speaking to any other amendment. I support without qualification everything that has been said in support of the amendment.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House to the Second Reading debate when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said:
"There is no doubt that the present system is badly in need of reform. When passing a life sentence the trial judge should he able to announce in open court the tariff or penal period that he considers to be necessary for punishment and deterrence". [Official Report, 12/3/91; col. 100.]
I need not go on. This is the kind of amendment about which the Government should think two or three times before merely ignoring and rejecting.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I wish merely to add to what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I am sure that he had too much modesty to make the comment himself. The present system imposes a burden upon him in office which is totally unacceptable. In addition to other enormously responsible duties it is impossible for the Lord Chief Justice to have to spend an incredible amount of time going through between 300 and 400 cases per year and consider them as he does with great care and responsibility. I suggest that that is a system of administration which is crazy in the circumstances. It makes the office of Lord Chief Justice, which is already over-burdensome, almost impossible to bear.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether there is a single reason why the Government do not want an accused person to know what is the length of the penal element in the sentence. Is there any conceivable reason for that person not to have the right first to know it and secondly to dispute it?
Lord Waddington: Both the select committee report and the European Court judgment raise issues every
1598
bit as difficult as those which we discussed earlier in relation to mandatory life sentences for murder. Indeed, it is not possible to separate entirely the two matters. The link is the need for the public to be able to have confidence in the willingness and ability of the criminal justice system to deal effectively with people who may have committed the most appalling crimes and who may he so dangerous that they need to be locked away from society for an indefinite period.
The issues in the report and the judgment are so important and complex that it would not be right for the Government to rush into hasty measures. I certainly cannot accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and his complaint —and I believe I heard him aright—that we have not yet put legislation on to the statute book.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I made two suggestions. First, well before the end of last year when this matter came before the European Court of Human Rights, the Government knew that they were going to lose the case. That was clear from the European Commission's decision on the matter.
Secondly, this Bill has been presented in Parliament. It follows that this is an opportunity to change the law. One of the men who won his case at Strasbourg is 74 years old. Is it not right that we should acknowledge that we shall accept the judgment of the European Court and implement it?
Lord Waddington: There can be no question of our ignoring the implications of the European Court's judgment. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord suggests seriously that it is always easy to know what is the right way in which to give effect to the decision of the European Court.
Also, when saying that there is no question of our ignoring the implications of the judgment, we must not over-dramatise its effect. Our procedures in relation to discretionary and not mandatory life sentences were held to be flawed. However, there was no suggestion that the outcome would have been different in the cases in question if a procedure more in keeping with the convention had been followed.
As with all European Court judgments, it tells us very clearly what is wrong with our procedures but does not tell us what we must do to put them right. That is clearly a matter for government and Parliament. We must reconcile a number of potentially conflicting objectives in responding to the judgment.
First, any new procedures which we introduce must not only be scrupulously fair to the offender but must also be compatible with the framework and principles of our domestic law. The idea that the judiciary should take responsibility for decisions about offenders after they have been sentenced is completely new in the law of this country and we must think through its implications.
Secondly, the new arrangements must give to the public adequate protection from offenders who may have committed absolutely dreadful crimes. The public and the victims of crime must feel confident that their interests, as well as those of the offender, are being respected. Therefore, this matter cannot be

1599
sorted out by a few quick strokes of the legislative pen. The task requires real care and, if we do a botched-up job, we may regret that later.
At the heart of the matter is the difficult question of what should be the role of the Minister and what should be the role of the judge when it comes to deciding when a life sentence should be reviewed and when a person serving a life sentence should be released on licence. I dare say that a good number of those who have supported diminution of the ministerial role do that in the belief that it will lead to the release of life sentence prisoners rather earlier than they are now released and earlier than Ministers consider appropriate.
Indeed, that is reflected in the criticisms in the select committee's report of the use by Home Office Ministers of the power in their hands to set longer tariffs for determining when cases should first be reviewed—longer tariffs than those recommended by trial judges and the Lord Chief Justice. However, we must remember that whether or not Ministers' views in these cases are right or wrong, Home Office Ministers bear a heavy responsibility. As I said in the earlier debate, the Home Secretary bears the ultimate responsibility for public safety and the Committee will forgive me when I repeat that the House of Commons has repeatedly voted against capital punishment for murder on the understanding that murderers would stay in prison for as long as Ministers thought necessary.
It may be that the House of Commons and public opinion would feel as much or greater confidence in a new system which gave less responsibility to Ministers and more to the judiciary and which perhaps resulted in life sentence prisoners being released earlier than they are now. However, the need to maintain public confidence is so important that any proposals for change should be subject to proper consultation and debate, not just in this Chamber and another place but among the public at large.
The public will rightly be concerned about the implications of change and must be properly consulted about and prepared for it. Slipping in amendments to a Criminal Justice Bill at a late stage of its passage is not the right way to go about that.
However, it is not just a question of whether it should be the Executive or the judiciary which should take decisions about the review of these cases and about release. As regards the cases which cause the greatest anxiety—namely, the worst murderers—the issue is as much about when a decision on release should be taken as about who should take it.
I must ask my noble friend Lady Platt this question. Is it right that a final decision as to the penal term should be taken at the time of trial? Can either a judge, or a Minister for that matter, be confident, when a person is convicted now of the worst type of murder, that 20, 30 or even 50 years on society will feel that the crime has been adequately punished and, if it is safe to do so, that the murderer shall be released into the community? Those are very difficult questions. Therefore, I do not accept the proposition that it is
1600
self-evident that the judge at the time should in a life sentence case say precisely what it is then thought is the right punishment to be awarded.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his amendments proposes that the penal term should be no more than 20 years and that parole should operate. I have said something about that already. However, if we have in mind something like the scheme of parole which would be implemented if this Bill were to pass into law, that would mean that a person would have to be considered for release after 10 years. I say again, such a move would be a body blow to the credibility of the life sentence system in the eyes of the public.
Against that background we shall need to resolve a number of difficult questions in order to devise satisfactory arrangements for the future which comply with the European Court judgment. The concept of dividing up a sentence into successive elements—retribution, denunciation, protection and so on—is absolutely new to English law. We shall need to think carefully about whether, and if so how, that should be reflected in our legislation and procedures.
Then again, reverting to what was said earlier, let us not forget that the European Court judgment applies only to discretionary life cases. The court applied different reasoning to mandatory life sentences. For the latter, it concluded that the lawfulness of detention for life was settled at the outset by the passing of the life sentence and did not fall to be reviewed by a judicial body once a certain part of the sentence had been served.
I remind the Committee that that differs from the view taken by the select committee, which suggests a review in the case of all life sentences. The implications of that difference of view between the European Court on the one hand and the select committee on the other, must also be carefully considered. It is not self-evident that there should be the same scheme for all life sentence cases, whether they are life sentences in murder or other cases. If we are to shift the burden of decision making, at least for discretionary cases, from Ministers to the judiciary, we must then tackle a series of practical questions. The amendments before us amply demonstrate the range and complexity of those.
I congratulate the draftsmen on the thoroughness with which they have gone about the job. However, I am told by officials that there are other questions which are not covered. For example, would there be any role for the Secretary of State in the making of representations to the tribunal about the implications of the prisoner's release for public safety and public confidence in the life sentence system? Would there be a right of appeal against the tribunal's findings either on the part of the prisoner or on the part of the Secretary of State?
There is therefore a range of fundamental and complex questions to be considered. I believe it would be quite wrong to rush into legislation before we have identified suitable proposals to deal with both the issues of principle and the practical questions, and have conducted proper consultations about the proposed solutions. The life sentence system is under criticism from a variety of points of view and in a variety of respects. It is essential to make changes

1601
which have proper regard to all the criticisms and to create a new structure which carries the confidence of Parliament, of the judiciary, of the executive and of public opinion as well as meeting our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment was received only recently. The Government make no apologies for thinking very carefully about this difficult and complex task. Moreover, the issues need to be addressed together; making piecemeal changes here and there may have unforeseen and undesirable consequences. I assure the Committee that the Government will act appropriately so that we are in compliance with the European Court judgment. However, for the reasons I have given I advise the Committee to reject these amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask—the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, cannot—whether he will reconsider his rather unkind suggestion that slipping in an amendment such as this at a late stage of the Bill is not the way to go about it. I have never heard that kind of charge made in this Chamber. We all dealt with the amendment. I spoke to it and at least five other noble Lords spoke to it at Second Reading. The Government have had a lot of time in which to consider it and I hope my noble friend will consider the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and those—not myself—who appended their names to the amendment to be wholly unjustified.
Lord Waddington: I apologise to the Committee. I perhaps could have used more felicitous language. However, the fact remains that it is not simply a question of accepting the basic suggestions made by the Select Committee in its report. We are being asked to accept a great mass of extremely detailed amendments which we are told we can be absolutely certain will do the trick; that not only will they lead to compliance with the European Court judgment but that they will also be the easiest way of knitting the new arrangements into our old practices, the easiest way of involving the judiciary in the new system and all the rest of it. That is asking a lot.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I could be clear about what he is saying. I believe he said that the Government accept the principle that the decision on when to release life sentence prisoners should be removed from the sole discretion of the Home Secretary—the secret exercise of his discretion as it now is—and transferred to a tribunal, whether in precisely this form or not is another matter. That tribunal would have the attributes of, first, sitting in public; secondly, allowing the defendant to be represented; thirdly, showing the defendant what the evidence against him was and, fourthly, allowing the defendant to call evidence. If the noble Lord is saying that, I shall be interested to hear his confirmation.
Lord Waddington: I am saying that the Government accept that steps must be taken; no
1602
doubt legislation will have to be introduced in order to bring ourselves in compliance with the European Court judgment.
The Earl of Longford: I believe it is my turn. Three amendments are tabled in my name. I do not propose to press the first I—may do so at another stage— because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, explained that it does not mean what I think it means or what it should mean. Nobody has been able to improve upon it or explain it. Unsatisfactory as it is I do not want the main discussion, which is of great importance, to be bogged down in this semantic wrangle and I shall therefore leave that matter for the next time.
There is a reference to parole, for which I did not argue. I shall leave that over; I am not quite clear how the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, relate to parole. I shall therefore leave that for the next time also.
However, even if I am alone on the burning deck, I stand by the amendment concerning the maximum length of the penal period being 20 years. With enormous respect to the Leader of the House perhaps I may say—with diffidence because it sounds almost patronising as he has made such a fine start as Leader of the House that I hope he will not spend too much time on future occasions telling us what public opinion is. That is not usual. We imagine we know what is going on and that is not a strong argument. I should like to hear him argue about what he believes in. Is my proposal a good one or something that the tabloids would not like?
Having said that, I am bound to stand by my amendment for the reasons I gave earlier.
Lord Waddington: I do not believe the proposal is a good one. That is my own opinion and nothing to do with public opinion.
The Earl of Longford: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 69B.
Amendment No. 69B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69A, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69A, Amendment No. 69C:
After Clause 22, Line 9, at end insert:
("(1A) The maximum length of penal term which a court may impose shall be 20 years.").
On Question, Amendment No. 69C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 69A, negatived.
[Amendment Nos. 69D and 69E not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 69F to 69H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Nathan: I believe it is in order for me to comment on certain matters raised, particularly those raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I do not intend to be personal in this respect, but I believe it was a little hard to regard the whole matter of Amendment No. 69A as a bodged-up job. It is not a bodged-up job and it is not a matter which arose at the last moment.
This provision follows with considerable accuracy the recommendations made in the Select Committee's

1603
report published in July 1989, which is quite a long time ago. The report evolved after one year's serious consideration. More or less weekly meetings were held throughout that period and the provision was not by any means a sudden thought. Furthermore, the whole question had been under consideration since the debates in your Lordships' Chamber in late 1987 on the previous Criminal Justice Bill, now the Criminal Justice Act 1988. So this is not a matter which is just a rabbit out of a hat. It has emerged after very serious consideration by some people with very great experience of the operation of the administration of the law and by others who came to it a little more freshly. I do not think that this matter can be regarded as something which has just come out of a hat.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, I and others raised this question at Second Reading. I also referred in the debate on the Loyal Address to the decision of the European Court of Justice. So this matter has been considered for quite a long time. As regards its particular merits, it arises from a concern about principle; namely, whether decisions relating to the penal term which shall be served by those who are sentenced to life imprisonment shall be dealt with judicially in the open and be subject to appeal. That is the essence of what we are talking about. We are not talking about detailed questions of drafting, although I would back the drafting which is here. The question of principle is one of great consequence. We rehearsed the arguments exhaustively in the previous debate on the principle of the mandatory life sentence. This is a matter on which the opinion of the Committee should be taken.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 69A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 68.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carter, L.

Acton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L

Ailesbury, M.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Airedale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ampthill, L.

David, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bancroft, L.

Donoughue, L.

Beloff, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Birdwood, L.

Falkender, B.

Birk, B.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Foot, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Borthwick, L.

Galpern, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Greenway, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Grey, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Hampton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carnock, L.

Hertford, M.

1604

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hunt, L.

Oram, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hylton, L.

Peston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rea, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rees, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Richard, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Kissin, L.

Russell, E.

Lane, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Serota, B.

Listowel, E.

Shannon, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lytton, E.

Tenby, V.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McNair, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mersey, V.

Thurlow, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monkswell, L.

Underhill, L.

Monson, L.

Wharton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

White, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wigram, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Munster, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Willis, L.

Nathan, L. [Teller.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Nelson, E.

Wise, L.

Nicol, B.

Worcester, Bp.

Northfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boardman, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Prior, L.

Cox, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Flather, B.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Waddington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
Clause 23 [Alteration of certain penalties under Theft Act 1968]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 18, line 48, at end insert:

1605
("(4) In section 51(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (penalties for bomb hoaxes)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "three months" there shall be substituted the words "six months"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "seven years".").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. The amendment to Clause 23 increases the maximum penalty for bomb hoaxes. In the magistrates' courts an offender would be liable to a maximum sentence of six months, the longest such a court may impose for a single offence, rather than three months as at present. The maximum sentence which a bomb hoaxer might receive in a Crown Court would rise from five to seven years.
A bomb hoax is an irresponsible waste of other people's time and effort. It can cause great inconvenience to very many people. It can also endanger lives by making it harder to identify and to respond to genuine warnings. Eighty-four hoax calls were made in the 24 hours after a bomb was discovered at Paddington station in February. Nearly 800 hoax calls were received by the end of the following week. In view of that spate of hoaxes my right honourable friend Mr. Patten announced a review of the maximum penalties when the Bill was considered on Report in another place.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 13th March that the penalties would be increased and he undertook to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. The new maximum penalties provide a clear indication of the seriousness with which we and the public as a whole view the offence. I know that it will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter since he offered his support for an increase in the penalties when he raised the subject at Second Reading. I hope that it will also meet with the approval of the Committee.
The amendment to Clause 86 ensures increased penalties for bomb hoaxes in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. It also extends to Scotland Clause 23(3), which increases the penalties for offences under the Badgers Act 1973. In both cases the original offences already extend to Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having raised this matter with others, I am delighted that the Government have brought forward the amendment. The noble Earl is quite right. Public opinion has taken two forms; first, that bomb hoaxes, which have on some occasions paralysed London's public transport system and caused great anxiety among the travelling public, are a matter of grave public concern, and, secondly, that the maximum sentence in the magistrates' courts of three months, which with remission means in reality six weeks, is wholly inappropriate. I am very glad that the Government have listened to our views and have put the amendment before the Committee.
Lord Richard: We think the amendment sensible and support it.
Lord Hylton: The principle of the amendment is right. Perhaps the noble Earl can say whether the
1606
maximum sentence will now be the same in England and Wales as in Northern Ireland. The offence of creating a bomb hoax seems to be just as serious wherever it occurs.
Lord Monson: Bomb hoaxes certainly cause an enormous amount of worry and inconvenience and cost a great deal of money. For that reason I welcome paragraph (a) which enables the sentence for a summary offence to be increased from three to six months. Paragraph (b) is a little different. Perhaps the noble Earl can give an example of where a judge has complained that the current maximum sentence of five years is inadequate. Secondly, how does the proposed maximum sentence compare with the penalties which can be imposed for giving, for example, a false fire alarm? I am a little worried about raising sentences for public relations purposes if it is not strictly necessary and if judges have not complained about the inadequacy of the current maximum sentence.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, for agreeing with the Government for the first time this afternoon. I commend them on that attitude and I hope that it will continue. I cannot at the moment tell the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the position with regard to Northern Ireland but I shall find out and let him know. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether judges have expressed the view that the present sentences are inadequate. My right honourable friend Mr. Patten undertook a review of the present position. Although maximum sentences may not be used 'very frequently they do set the scale by which sentences tend to be given. If the maximum is lower down the scale the chances are that other offences which attract a lesser penalty will accordingly attract a less than adequate penalty. I hope therefore that the Committee will agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 18, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) Notwithstanding section 1(3) above the court shall not pass a custodial sentence solely for an offence under section 5(2), or section 19 as it applies in the case of proceedings for an offence under subsection 5(2), of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is simply to write on the face of the Bill that which is the Government's published intention; namely, that drug addicts should not be sent to prison but should receive treatment for their problem.
In 1989, which is the last year for which I have figures, and the last year for which I believe figures were published, 1,821 people went to prison for unlawful possession. Most people with drug problems use alcohol and prescription drugs, possession of which carries no risk of imprisonment. It is therefore somewhat innocuous that a problem with one group of drugs only carries with it the risk of imprisonment. Most of those who end up in prison have never been in contact with any drug agency or facility, often because they fear that contact with a statutory agency may lead to prosecution and a possible prison sentence.
Let me make it clear immediately that this is not a backdoor route to legalisation or decriminalisation but merely a recognition that in a civilised society we do not imprison people for having what the World Health Organisation has long defined as a treatable disease. Indeed the courts have a vital role to play in directing offenders toward agencies where they can receive help. It is a role that would be emphasised by this amendment. It may be argued that the courts need the ultimate option of a prison sentence to deter the repeated offender, but all the evidence shows that drug users are not deterred by this threat. What it does show, however, is that many people with drug problems need several attempts at treatment to overcome their problems.
At a meeting with my right honourable friend the Minister of State I learnt of the intention to introduce a methadone maintenance programme in prison for addicts. That filled me with even greater horror. Prison has accurately been described as a temporary break in drug use. But at least it was that. The idea that prisoners should receive doses of addictive narcotics in prison is a return to an idea that failed 20 years ago. I hope that it will not be repeated. If my noble friend cannot accept my amendment perhaps he can at least assure the Committee that this policy will not be adopted.
The amendment is a logical development of current practice. Many police forces now only caution those in possession of Class B drugs. An increasing number of police forces caution those in possession of any controlled drug. By removing the penalty of imprisonment a degree of consistency so far lacking would be introduced. At the same time it would mean that those most in need of treatment would receive it, which is the Government's real intention. It has been suggested that this would prevent the use of community sentences. In fact, it would only affect suspended sentences, which would be a very good thing in this case as they lead to the highest rate of recidivism and to community service orders. It is more difficult with community service orders, but in fact they are very rarely used—in less than 2 per cent. of cases, I believe.
What the amendment does allow, however, and indeed encourages, is the use of a probation order with a condition of treatment, which is exactly what the Government want. As such, I confidently expect my noble friend to accept the amendment with open arms. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is most persuasive. I understand his concern. Indeed, I listened with interest to what he said. However, I cannot agree with his view that this is the right course of action to adopt. I accept the fact that in many cases such offences are not serious and that the offender has possession of the drugs simply for his own use or that of his friends. In such circumstances, a custodial sentence may well be inappropriate. Moreover, current sentencing practice reflects that fact. For example, in 1989, of all those persons cautioned or convicted of unlawful possession
1608
of drugs, 35 per cent. were cautioned (12,109 people) and a further 44 per cent. (14,888 people) received a fine.
However, such offences can also be more serious. In 1989, 6 per cent. of all those cautioned or convicted of unlawful possession of drugs received a prison sentence. We are not only talking about possession of Class C or B drugs, such as cannabis; we are also talking about possession of Class A drugs, such as cocaine or opium. The maximum term of imprisonment for such offences is seven years. I believe that it would be wrong to prevent the courts from using this sanction in appropriate cases.
If my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, a person might be in possession of a quantity of heroin or cocaine, or both, but could not be sent to prison unless it were possible to prove an intent to supply. That would be so even, for example, if the offender were someone in a position of authority or influence who had incited others to follow his example. I can assure my noble friend that, under the sentencing framework proposed in the Bill, if the offence is not serious it will not warrant a custodial sentence. I suggest that there is no need in this respect for any special provision in the legislation to deal with drug offences. For the reasons I have outlined, I believe that stronger sentences must remain. I understand my noble friend's point of view, but in view of what I said I trust he will agree that it would be inappropriate to relax the conditions.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will be kind enough to elaborate a little on what he said regarding the distinction between different kinds of people being in possession of different classes of drug. I take it from what he said that the Government are broadly of the view that, where a person is in possession of drugs of whatever class for his own use and where he obviously needs treatment, it will not be normal for such a person to receive a custodial sentence, regardless of the quantity of drugs, provided that the amount involved is consistent with the drugs being for his own use.
I also understand from what my noble friend said that custodial sentences will be used for those who may be presumed to have the drugs for the use of other people as well as themselves. That is an entirely different matter. I believe that is what my noble friend was saying, but it was not entirely clear.
Earl Ferrers: It is entirely a matter for the courts to decide what form of sentence should be imposed for each offence. If the offence was not very great, or if the person actually needed some kind of restorative treatment, the courts might decide to order such treatment. However, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that those who had drugs of a very strong nature could, nevertheless, not receive a custodial sentence.
I am sure that my noble friend would not expect me to dictate to the Committee or to the courts the type of sentence which should be imposed. As I said, there are sentencing provisions in the Bill. I believe that they

1609
are correct. In my view it is also appropriate that those in possession of strong drugs should on occasion be sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Lord Monson: I do not know whether the noble Earl and Members of the Committee are aware that the investigations of the Department of Transport have revealed that rather more road fatalities are associated with the consumption of perfectly legal drugs—that is, whether obtainable over the counter or on prescription—than with illegal drugs such as cannabis. Of course, that is not a totally conclusive argument. However, I believe that it adds a certain amount of weight to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
Lord Mancroft: I have listened with great care, as I always do, to my noble friend's response. I must say that I am not wholly convinced by it. He mentioned the seven-year maximum sentence. Of the many thousands of people who were cautioned or even prosecuted in 1989, only 1,800 were sent to prison. But of that number, only 24 received sentences of over two years' duration. That was presumably because the quantity of drugs involved was large.
It must be said that anyone caught with drugs which are over the fixed amount I cannot remember the quantity involved —is automatically charged with supply and not with possession. Therefore, the argument that holding a Class A drug, or possession of a large quantity of drugs, is deserving of a prison sentence does not hold water. Indeed, if you are in possession of more than a certain amount you are automatically presumed to be a supplier. A person is only charged with possession if the amount involved is very small. It is quite clear that those are the people who need treatment. I am in full agreement with my noble friend that, where there is even a remote suspicion that a person is a supplier and the case can be proved, such a person should go to prison. However, that is a different matter.
As I said, I am not absolutely certain that my noble friend's argument holds water. The police in various forces are very inconsistent at present in what they do; and, indeed, there is much inconsistency in what happens in the courts once a conviction has been obtained. If such police forces were as worried as my noble friend seems to believe they may be, they would undoubtedly not caution and release people. Some police forces now make no attempt to prosecute for this offence. It seems to me to be most unwise and unsatisfactory to have an offence on the statute book for which the police will not prosecute.
If this is such a ghastly crime and deserving of a prison sentence, it is rather extraordinary that another government department should be supplying drugs to addicts on the streets as happens in Liverpool. Indeed, if such drugs are so terrible they should not be supplied. After all, there are no therapeutic reasons for their supply. However, that initiative is encouraged by one government department in one part of the country, while in another a second seeks to make it an offence for people to carry such drugs. The situation is extraordinarily inconsistent and unsatisfactory.
1610
I do not propose to press the amendment this evening. However, I shall study carefully what my noble friend said. It is possible that I may wish to return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I think that this is an appropriate moment for us to break. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill until 10 minutes past eight. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
7.8 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which has agreed that it is a pure consolidation instrument without change in the law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we on this side of the House very much welcome this consolidation order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
7.9 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985. I believe that it will be of assistance to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The main purpose of the order is to plug the gap in existing powers by strengthening the powers of harbour authorities, and by empowering harbour masters to give directions prohibiting the entry into, or requiring the removal of a vessel from, a harbour. In this way, harbour authorities would be best equipped to deal with potential, serious emergencies which could occur as a consequence of the increase, in recent years, in the transport of dangerous cargoes by sea.
All harbour authorities have powers, which are exercised through their harbour masters, to regulate the manner in which ships enter and leave port, the berthing of ships and their movement within port. But although the matter has not yet been tested in court in

1611
Northern Ireland, some doubt has been expressed that such power extends to prohibiting a ship from entering a port or to requiring a ship to be removed entirely from a port.
That may seem a very minor matter but where a ship is not carrying a dangerous cargo there is always a risk of serious damage being done where, for example, it has defective steering and there could be a danger of collision with a ship carrying a dangerous cargo, or with any other ship. The danger could be increased substantially if a vessel in a dangerous condition seeks refuge in a port used by chemical carriers. The danger of course could he made far worse if there are residential or industrial buildings in the vicinity of the port.
Article 3 gives powers to a harbour master to prohibit a vessel from entering the harbour, or to remove a vessel where he considers its conditions or that of its contents to be such that its presence in the harbour might involve grave and imminent danger to the safety of any person or property; or that the vessel may, by sinking or foundering in the harbour, prevent or seriously prejudice the use of the harbour by other vessels. Article 4 limits the liability of a harbour authority for loss or damage to any vessel or anything contained in any vessel.
Article 5 empowers the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to give directions which may countermand or override those given by harbour masters in a situation where there are wider considerations to be taken into account than would be the case of a harbour master acting solely in the interests of his own port.
Article 6 provides that whatever action a harbour master takes in the exercise of his powers under Article 3, such action shall not interfere with similar powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 to give directions to deal with the wider issues of oil pollution affecting the United Kingdom as a whole.
Article 7 proposes that the maximum penalties for failing to comply with a harbour master's directions should not exceed £25,000 on summary conviction, and on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.
Article 8 provides for exemptions from the provisions of the order for vessels belonging to Her Majesty, or pleasure craft of up to 24 metres in length.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his explanation of the terms of this order. We welcome this order because there is by now a considerable awareness of the possible hazards associated with the movement of ships and shipment of dangerous cargoes.
I have just two questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm whether or not there is an arrangement in existence to enable the interests of Great Britain and the interests of the Republic to be taken into consideration, where that is appropriate, before the harbour master in Northern Ireland issues instructions to a ship's master under the terms of this order?
1612
Further, is there an arrangement to notify the authorities in such countries if instructions have been issued? Secondly, does the Republic of Ireland have legislation which harmonises with the provisions of this order?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his response to the order. The noble Lord asked me, first, whether I could confirm that there is an agreement in existence which would enable Great Britain to take the interests of the Republic of Ireland into account if a ship is turned away under this order. The noble Lord of course is rightly taking account of the fact that this is a harmonisation measure and we are talking about legislation that is in existence at the moment in Great Britain and, if this order is agreed to, would come into existence in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may answer the question in a slightly different way, and I hope give satisfaction to the noble Lord. It is important to notice that under Article 5 the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is empowered to give directions which would countermand or override those given by harbour masters in a situation where there are wider considerations to be taken into account than would be the case if the harbour master acted solely in the interests of his own port. It is quite important that those wider considerations are not defined under Article 5, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord raises.
Secondly, I think this matter goes a little wider than the noble Lord indicated. Yes, if a ship were to be turned away from, for instance, one of the harbours in Northern Ireland, obviously there could be implications regarding safety in the Republic of Ireland. But there could be implications for safety if there was a dangerous cargo on the west coast, for instance, of Great Britain, the Scottish coast, the English coast, and indeed the noble Lord's Welsh coast. There could possibly even be implications for the northern coast of Europe. It is precisely for that reason that the government department in Northern Ireland is empowered by Article 5 to be able to take a decision which could countermand a harbour master's decision to turn away, for instance, a dangerous cargo.
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. I am afraid that I am not aware as to whether there are arrangements in existence, but the telephone is always there and the swiftest of communications are always there. The great point is that there is this power embedded in this order that the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland can take a wider view, and could say in a particular case, "We have to be careful. We are in a particular case going to countermand an order to turn away."
I confess to the noble Lord that he has bowled me out about legislation in the Republic of Ireland. I shall have to write to him as to whether they have similar legislation on their statute book. I apologise to the noble Lord for not being able to answer that question, and I shall endeavour to repair the omission very quickly in correspondence.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 minutes past 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.18 until 8.10 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 23.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 70B:
Page 18, line 48, at end insert:
("( )) In section 1(1) (a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and in section 12(1) (a) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, for "ten" there shall be substituted "fifteen".").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which has the support of the NSPCC and the Association of County Councils. I shall not under any circumstances press it to a Division today. It serves to draw attention to a serious problem and an important gap in the law which ought to be dealt with as a matter of urgency under the Criminal Justice Bill.
I realise that in a thin Committee I speak for the benefit of Hansard but that in no way detracts from the importance, the seriousness and urgency of the situation. As the Committee may know, in a recent case the Court of Appeal was obliged to quash convictions for the manslaughter of a child because it could not be established which of the two accused, who both had the opportunity, inflicted the fatal injuries.
Where do we go from there? I am not entirely sure. However, I know that the Committee will wish to take action because we cannot leave the matter as it is. The object of the amendment is to seek consideration by Her Majesty's Government of the great, important and urgent concern and interest in the protection of children. The object is also at some stage under the Bill to secure a satisfactory and reasonable resolution of the problem.
In a case like this, it could well be that wilful ill treatment in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health could have been established against either or both of the accused within the section to which the amendment relates. I am assuredly not being technical at this hour. I have not read the transcript of the evidence or the judgment in the case. That may be just as well because whether or not alternative proceedings could have been brought under the section to which I refer is perhaps not the point. It was thought, admittedly by me and probably erroneously, that some greater protection for children could be afforded by increasing the maximum sentence from 10 to 15 years. This is proposed in the amendment for serious cases where death results from the ill treatment of children. However, perhaps it is not appropriate.
Nevertheless, something must be done in the context where, first, two or perhaps three people, and only those people, have access to the child; secondly, that child is found dead; thirdly, that child is found to have been battered to death. Proceedings are
1614
instituted. Both of, or all, the people who had access to the child, and only those people, have the right to silence. The prosecution must prove its case. Everything is done in the privacy of this evil home.
Perhaps the only way to deal with a case in those circumstances is to reverse the burden of proof. I do not pretend to know the answer. All I pretend to know is that something must be done. I seek the assistance of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I wish very strongly to support the amendment. It seems to me quite incomprehensible that a child aged 16 months, quit:, clearly in the custody of two people, should be murdered and that in the long run nobody should be found guilty of the offence because it cannot be decided which of them dealt the fell blow. That must be wrong, and unjust. It must be something that we have the opportunity to put right in this Bill.
Whether my noble friend's amendment is ideal for the purpose, I do not know, he is more experienced in the law. The way in which he has phrased it does not seem to me to hit the nail on the head. I hope that somebody more expert could find a way of making sure that the law can find one or two people guilty under the circumstances which arose in the case of the murder of Doreen Aston.
Perhaps sometime during the passage of the Bill we shall be able to reach a solution which prevents that kind of crime happening again. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that the Home Office has this well in hand and that he has in mind producing amendments at a later stage which will deal with the problem. As a mere layman, it seems to me extraordinary that the law cannot be phrased in such a way as to avoid this problem.
Lord Richard: I support the thrust of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Prima facie the position is anomalous. If a crime has taken place in a situation where only one of two people could conceivably have committed it, it is anomalous for there to be no liability on anyone's part for what on the face of it is an admitted crime. In popular parlance at least one could say that there is the smell of an absurdity about that. The principle is not confined to crimes against children. It is a well established principle of the criminal law. If the Home Office is considering the matter, I shall be interested to read its comments in due course. If the matter is not being considered by the Home Office, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that it should do so.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right to draw attention to a distressing case. On the face of it some people may feel that the outcome was unsatisfactory. Child cruelty is always a distressing offence. Everyone wishes to ensure that the offenders are properly punished For it. The amendment of my noble friend proposes that the maximum penalty for the offence should be increased from 10 to 15 years' imprisonment.
The worst offences against children are already covered by substantial maximum penalties in other

1615
legislation. For example, life imprisonment is the maximum sentence for manslaughter, infanticide, grievous bodily harm and for the most serious sexual offences. In Scotland the common law position is similar. The offence of cruelty to children is likely to be charged only when none of those other offences is suitable. The most obvious example is the offence of neglect or starvation which does not result in death. I do not wish to go into the details of the Aston case to which my noble friend referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the situation becomes difficult if liability cannot be attributed to anyone. It is important to remember that in the case mentioned this evening the couple concerned were freed because they had served their two year sentence while remanded in custody. That was then the maximum sentence for child cruelty. Since then the maximum penalty for child cruelty has been increased to 10 years' imprisonment by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That increase was imposed after the date on which the couple were convicted.
To some extent the problem which my noble friends have rightly identified, and with which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is concerned, has already been dealt with. I worry about increasing the penalty for a particular offence simply in order to punish more severely people against whom a different and more serious offence cannot be proven. We increased the maximum penalty for the offence from two to 10 years in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I hope the Committee will agree that in that respect the problem should be covered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he said. I thank too all Members of the Committee who have spoken. But with the greatest respect, when my noble friend the Minister says that the issue has been covered, I must disagree with him. The point I am making, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has not been covered. It is not a question of increasing sentences. In that sense I accept that the form of the amendment is inept. A murdered child has been found and only certain people had access to that child. It is a question of whether those people should be entitled to have resort to the right of silence and ask the Crown to prove the case against them or whether the only people who had access to the child and the opportunity to commit the crime must explain what happened to the child. There are certain cases where the burden of proof is reversed.
All I can do is to ask my noble friend the Minister to take on board the situation that has arisen with a view to trying to deal with it on its merits in relation to what has happened and not merely in relation to the form of the amendment which is concerned with increasing sentences. At this stage I can say no more. I can only hope the Government will take the situation on board. If they do not do so by Third Reading, perhaps we shall have to produce an amendment to that effect.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I can offer a little help. My noble friend's amendment suggests that we increase
1616
the penalty for this offence. With respect I believe he is now slightly shifting his ground and saying that we should deal with the right of silence. That is a different matter. My noble friend is further saying that if a child is killed and only two people were present with the child, one of whom must be responsible for the murder, both people should suffer a penalty even if it cannot be proven which one committed the murder.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, I am saying that they should merely be asked to explain what happened. That is the difference.
Earl Ferrers: That comes back to the point about the right of silence. I shall, of course, consider what my noble friend has said. I accept that this is an important point. However, I believe the points he has made go wider than the terms of his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend. I accept that the points I have made go wider than the terms of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Savings for mitigation and mentally disordered offenders
(" .—(1) Nothing in this Part shall prevent a court from mitigating an offender's sentence by taking into account any such matters as, in the opinion of the court, are relevant in mitigation of sentence.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, nothing in this Part shall prevent a court—

(a) from mitigating any penalty included in an offender's sentence by taking into account any other penalty included in that sentence; or

(b) in a case of an offender who is convicted of one or more other offences, from mitigating his sentence by applying of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.

(3) Nothing in this Part shall be taken—

(a) as requiring a court to pass a custodial sentence, or a custodial sentence for any particular term, on a mentally disordered offender; or

(b) as restricting any power (whether under the Mental Health Act 1983 or otherwise) which enables a court to deal with such an offender in the manner it considers to be most appropriate in all the circumstances.").

The noble Earl said: We have already discussed this amendment with Amendment No. 9. It provides a general saving for mitigation and mentally disordered offenders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Effect of previous convictions
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, an offence shall not be regarded as more serious for the purposes of this Part by reason of any previous convictions of the offender or any response of his to previous sentences.
(2) In so far as the circumstances of any offences of which an offender has been previously convicted are relevant for the purpose of forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence, nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent the court from taking those circumstances into account for that purpose.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment was discussed on the first day of the Committee stage with

1617
Amendment No. 10. It tidies up the drafting of the Bill by bringing together in one clause the provisions of Clauses 3 and 6 on an offender's previous record. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I ask for the indulgence of the Committee because I do not know what my locus standi is in relation to the fact that this amendment has already been debated. was not present on the first day of the Committee stage for reasons that I expressed last Tuesday. Those reasons were the subject matter of my personal apology to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I do not know to what extent I might at least raise a point for clarification which relates entirely to Amendment No. 72 and to the last six or seven words of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause which states:
"an offence shall not be regarded as more serious for the purposes of this Part by reason … or any response … to previous sentences".
I am sure that it is entirely my fault, but I do not understand why that is made irrelevant. Section 123 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which concerns custodial sentences of young offenders and is therefore directed to trying to control the extent to which young offenders receive custodial sentences, provides that an offender qualifies for a custodial sentence if he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them. That makes it perfectly clear that in deciding whether or not a young offender qualifies for a custodial sentence it is looked upon as an important relevant factor to have regard to his inability or unwillingness to respond to non-custodial penalties. For the moment I do not understand why for an adult offender the judge, when considering the seriousness of the offence, must ignore:
"any response of his to previous sentences".
From the point of view of someone who has sentenced in the past that just does not make sense. It is of enormous relevance to know whether his response to previous sentences has been one of enthusiastic compliance or whether he has resolutely failed to comply with conditions of a probation order or a community service order. If I am in order I merely wish to know why the judiciary are to be blinkered in this way, which seems to impose upon them a sense of unreality which is quite unacceptable.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to tell me that he would not be able to be present on the first day of the Committee stage. He is entirely in order to ask his question. It so happens that a number of amendments were grouped together with the earlier amendment because they were linked. The noble and learned Lord is entirely within his rights to ask me what this amendment means. However, that sets me a gargantuan task because if the noble and learned Lord in all his wisdom cannot understand the amendment it is rather tough for a mere Minister to explain to a Law Lord what is meant, but I shall do my best.
The amendment concerns the response to a previous sentence. We deliberately did not follow the
1618
Criminal Justice Act 1988. That is a form of sentencing on record which we consider undesirable. Community penalties are penalties in their own right. We feel that once the punishment has been completed the offender should not be in jeopardy again for the earlier offence. That is why the different course was followed. I hope that I have explained the position to the noble and learned Lord. If he is still in doubt about it I shall seek further advice and write to him.
Lord Ackner: I am very relieved to know that I am in order, but I am still puzzled. If this material is relevant, and Parliament has said in Section 123 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that it is relevant in reference to young offenders, I remain confused as to why it is irrelevant in relation to more adult offenders who should be much more responsible in their response to previous sentences than the youngsters may be expected to be. That is the cause of my concern. Given that Parliament has said that this is a relevant consideration for the young I do not see why —and I use the word relatively—it should be an irrelevant consideration for the more mature.
Earl Ferrers: The best that I can do is to consider what the noble and learned Lord has said because it is obviously a matter about which he has some anxiety. If I may, I shall write to him on the subject and if he wishes to take up the matter he may do so at a later stage of the Bill. That is probably the best way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Ackner: I am most grateful, as always, to the noble Earl for his kindness and generosity. I should be most grateful if he would do as he suggests.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1961
. In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the words "his sentence shall be treated" there shall be substituted the words "his sentence may be treated".").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 73 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for adding his name to the amendment. I saw him earlier this evening and he explained that although he was present earlier in the day he could not stay on to this late hour.
It may come as a mild surprise when. I say that the purpose of the amendment is to benefit prisoners' families and to sustain their relationship with persons in custody. That is not immediately apparent from the text of the amendment. However, on 2.3rd January I gave notice of the underlying point to the right honourable lady the Minister with responsibility for prisons and wrote to her again on 26th March. I sent copies to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
I emphasise again that the purpose of maintaining access and good relations between prisoners and their families is to help make imprisonment a positive rather than an entirely negative experience. Above all, it facilitates rehabilitation and the reintegration of prisoners into the normal life of society. That is why prison rule 31(1), states:

1619
"Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relations between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both".
I wish to stress the importance of the word "both". That means that the family has a direct interest in the question of the prisoner's location within the prison system. That was a point which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had in mind during his intervention on an earlier amendment. It is a point, furthermore, which I understand the report of Lord Justice Woolf strongly underlined. If I am correct I am delighted that it did so.
It will be well known to the Committee that the United Kingdom is divided into three jurisdictions, each with its own separate legal and prison system. These are England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is normal for those convicted to serve their sentences in the jurisdiction in which they were tried. Section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides for prisoners to apply to serve their sentence in their home jurisdiction.
If we examine the question of transfers between England and Northern Ireland there should be no problem in the case of life sentences. The rules governing release for such prisoners are fully discretionary in both jurisdictions. It is therefore perfectly open to the two Secretaries of State to agree that a transferred prisoner shall be treated for the purposes of release in the same way in Northern Ireland as he would have been in England. I trust that the Secretaries of State will take advantage of that ability.
The issue of fixed sentences is, however, more difficult. That is because Section 26(4) of the Act lays down that a transferred person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced in the receiving jurisdiction. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland therefore has no discretion. He must give a transferred prisoner the benefit of the more lenient remission available in Northern Ireland as compared with England and Wales.
That point was well illustrated by the recent case of Mr. John McComb, a prisoner from Belfast whom I visited in gaol in England and whose mother I have met in Belfast. He applied for judicial review of the Home Secretary's refusal to transfer him to Northern Ireland. The High Court upheld the Home Secretary because transfer would have resulted in an extra two years or so of remission on a 17-year sentence.
Our amendment seeks to enable the receiving Secretary of State to apply the rules for release and remission that apply at the time of transfer within the sending jurisdiction. I cannot believe that that would be administratively impractical, given the small numbers likely to be involved. I doubt whether there can be more than a few dozen prisoners from Northern Ireland serving long, fixed sentences in England. I speak from some experience, having visited some of the prisoners in England and having called on some of their families in Northern Ireland. I should add that our concern is supported by the National Association of Probation Officers, the Northern
1620
Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland.
The reality that we are addressing is that prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland will be sited within reasonable distance of their families and will be entitled to one visit per week. On the other hand, if they remain in England, they are entitled to only one visit per month. Because of the long distances and the high cost of travel and lodging, they will in practice be lucky if they receive two or three visits per year. Furthermore, there is ample space available within the Northern Ireland prisons.
I was encouraged when the right honourable Lady, Mrs. Rumbold, wrote to me at the end of March. She said that she and her colleagues would consider the steps that they might take to alleviate the problems faced by prisoners and their families in maintaining their links. I trust that those steps include legislative ones. Now seems to be the opportunity. In my view, it would be quite wrong that families should be punished because of technicalities, however heinous the crimes of their relations.
On technical grounds, the amendment may not be perfect and it may require consequential amendments to Clause 86(5). Our amendment concerns the treatment of offenders and is therefore well within the Long Title. The Bill already applies in part to Scotland and I fail to see why it can be wrong to apply it also in part to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I rise briefly to support the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Hunt, and so ably interpreted by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As he said, it is along the lines that I mentioned with regard to an earlier amendment this afternoon, so I shall not repeat my argument.
I hope that the Minister will consider this to be a serious issue, given the atmosphere that the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to create in that part of the United Kingdom. Given his attempts, would it not be better if we could remove some of the major obstacles—and this is a major obstacle—in that part of the United Kingdom? It might make the Secretary of State's task that much easier if people knew that something constructive was being done to help the families and children involved. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the tremendously long journeys which in my view and the view of all those people who understand the situation are totally unnecessary.
However—this is where the credibility of the system comes into doubt—it appears that someone has said that we shall release or transfer the statutory Irishman every five years. The criteria for parole are then changed, so we catch another few of them in the trap as a result of the new rules. As I said earlier, there have been about six changes in the criteria since 1973. Out of six prisoners who were all sentenced in the same court for the same crime at the same time by the same judge, five have been sent back, mostly one at a time, although in one instance two at a time. The one who is left is now trapped and told that he cannot be considered because the criteria have again been

1621
changed. That does not help the atmosphere that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to create. I hope that the Minister will at least agree to reconsider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is concerned about prisoners both here and in Northern Ireland and that he has been in touch with my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold about the matter.
Under the present law, a prisoner, who is sentenced in England and transferred at his own request to Northern Ireland, will be subject to the early release arrangements which operate in Northern Ireland. If he were transferred in the other direction, from Northern Ireland to England, to serve out his sentence in an English prison, then the early release arrangements to be introduced for England and Wales by this Bill will in the future apply to him. The procedures on early release and recall to prison are complicated, but at least under this arrangement all parties know where they stand. All prisoners in a Northern Ireland prison are subject to the Northern Ireland rules, and all prisoners in a prison in England and Wales are subject to the rules for England and Wales.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's underlying concerns, but I see some serious difficulties with his amendment. It would introduce an element of discretion into the existing arrangements. It would provide that a prisoner's sentence "may" be treated as if imposed in the jurisdiction to which he is transferred and not that it "shall" be so treated. So a prisoner who is moved from one part of the United Kingdom to another could be subject to the early release arrangements operating in either. He could be transferred to Scotland but remain subject to the English arrangements, or vice versa.
That seems to me to be a recipe for confusion. It is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggests. It is not clear, for a start, who is to decide to which arrangements a transferred prisoner will be subject. Is it the prisoner, the transferring authority, the receiving authority, or some combination of those? The early release arrangements in Northern Ireland are different from those applying in England and Wales. The differences between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland on the other, are fewer, but some may remain even after implementation of the Kincraig proposals which are similar to those of the Carlisle Committee. The decision on which rules to apply could therefore affect the date of the prisoner's release. In such an important matter, it seems to me that there should be a clear and unambiguous rule. It should not be left to an administrative decision of some kind. The clearest and most practical rule is that the prisoner should be dealt with according to the arrangements in force in the jurisdiction where he is held.
There would be difficulties on a practical level too if we departed from that rule. For example, the prison authorities in Northern Ireland would have to work out how the English procedures applied before
1622
releasing someone transferred from England. Cases involving long-term prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland would still have to be considered by the Parole Board for England and Wales perhaps many years after those prisoners had last had any contact with the prison authorities in England and Wales.
Furthermore, Section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 extends to a prisoner's detention as well as to his release. That presumably includes the application of prison rules and adjudications on breaches of these. To have an inmate who is accommodated in one jurisdiction but who is subject to the day-to-day regulations governing another would be unfair both to the individual and to the other inmates and would be administratively unworkable.
However, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's concerns. The current arrangements sometimes create difficulties for families of prisoners who have to travel a long way to visit them. As the noble Lord said, he has recently met my right honourable friend Mrs. Rumbold to discuss those issues and has had some correspondence with her. He knows that we are considering further the scope for alleviating the very problems which are caused to prisoners and families by the operation of the 1961 Act, to which he has quite correctly referred. I hope that, if that is the case, he will agree that it would be suitable for my right honourable friend to consider how best we can alleviate these problems.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Earl at least for his sympathy, but that is about as much as I can say. He told us that prisoners now in England know where they stand. That is true, but the practical result seems to be that they fail to get transferred when they ask for it, as I believe I brought out reasonably clearly in the case of Mr. McComb.
It is somewhat difficult to avoid at least the suspicion that the Home Office is not very anxious to help. Had the noble Earl been able to say what practical steps the Government have in mind for alleviating the situation caused by the long journeys to visit and by the cost of visiting, we should have made a little progress. But that does not seem to be the case and I regret it.
The hour is late, and the issue is a complicated and technical one. I do not intend to press the matter tonight. However, I reserve the right to come back to this point at later stages of the Bill and indeed any other relevant legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 73A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
(" .—(1) (a) Where a person has been convicted by a court of placing himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court or passage to beg or gather alms under section 3 or 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, then he or she shall be liable only to:

(i) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or

(ii) a conditional discharge, or

(iii) an absolute discharge, or

(iv) a probation order.

(b) Before imposing a fine on such an offender as is mentioned in paragraph (a) the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money on which to support himself or herself.
(2) Where a person has been convicted by a court of wandering abroad, or lodging in any barn or outhouse or in any deserted or unoccupied building or in the open air or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon and not giving a good account of himself or herself contrary to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, he or she shall be liable only to—

(a) a conditional discharge, or

(b) an absolute discharge, or

(c) be made the subject of a probation order.

(3) Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and the name of three other Members of the Committee. Perhaps I may say at once that, although I move the amendment with the utmost intention to persevere with it, I do not for two reasons seek the Division of the Committee today. The first reason is because I feel that the Committee, and the Government in particular, will already have had enough of Divisions for one evening. Secondly, I very much hope that after two-thirds of the Members have gone to bed happily, between us we can persuade the Government there is absolutely no need for a Division and the noble Earl will be able to say that this amendment or something like it which he may be able to improve upon will be acceptable to the Government.
I say that with a certain amount of confidence because the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, has so notably expressed his sympathy with the people who sleep rough on the streets. Not only has he expressed sympathy but without dithering at all he has done something practical for them and done it quickly. I hope that with that kind of support the noble Earl will view this amendment with sympathy just as, I hope, will the Prime Minister, if he hears of it.
This is not the first time that this matter has been raised in the present session. Members of the Committee will remember that, greatly to his credit, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, introduced the Crime of Vagrancy (Abolition) Bill in 1990. Although there were reservations by the Government, it went unopposed through this Chamber and is now in the House of Commons, where it languishes. During the Second Reading debate on 11th December last year I suggested that an alternative means of achieving perhaps most of the purposes of that Bill would or could be found by way of amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill and would have a better chance of success than a friendless Private Member's Bill coming from this Chamber with no one to take it up and ensure that it prospered in the House of Commons.
Therefore I and my noble friends have tabled this amendment, with due regard—I say this particularly to the noble Earl —to the reservations that he expressed on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and also with due regard to the Long Title of the Bill. I say that because on Second Reading the noble Earl expressed the view that the proposal could possibly be incompatible with the Long Title of the Bill. As we
1624
have carefully drafted the amendment it is compatible with the Long Title. We hope to secure the meat of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in the Criminal Justice Bill.
I shall not say—because it would be dishonest of me to do so—that I would not have preferred the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, to go through. But I hope that the meat of his Bill will be accepted in the Criminal Justice Bill. In these propositions the meat is that there seems to be no rational defence of a law which makes it an offence to sleep rough on the streets. Moreover, there can be no rational defence of a law which makes it a crime peacefully and without aggression to ask a passer-by for money, particularly when the person asking for money has no other means of support. As I said, the Long Title of the Bill is too restrictive to enable us to repeal entirely Sections 3 and 4 but it is enough for us to be able to seek to amend those Sections so as to alleviate the misery of those against whom this Act is used.
This amendment has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and also, I am happy to say, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who cannot be here today, from the Liberal Democrats. So it has all-party support. It seeks to meet the issues raised by the noble Earl at Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
From the Second Reading debate I gather that the Government believe that not all those who beg do so because they need to beg. Here I refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said on Second Reading. In so many words he said that those who beg are not necessarily genuinely needy or homeless. I have sought to meet that objection by subsection (1) (b) so that before a court could impose a fine on someone convicted of begging, the prosecution would have to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging solely to support himself, herself or dependants.
It seems reasonable to place that burden on the prosecution because it is the police who say that there is a problem with professional beggars. The police say that that problem exists and, if so, when they prosecute surely they must prove that it does exist in each particular case. Should the prosecution be unable to prove that the person in question is a professional beggar, then the court is restricted as to the sentence which it can impose. It may impose an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge or make the offender subject to a probation order. The same applies under subsection (2), where the powers of the court to sentence someone convicted of sleeping rough are similarly restricted. This amendment removes the power to fine such an offender.
Many people would find it repulsive to fine someone who is sleeping rough. The court would be enabled to impose only an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge or to make the offender subject to a probation order. That seems to me very much in line with the purposes of the Bill which is to keep such people out of the criminal justice system and certainly out of prison.
The amendment also seeks to repeal Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act which enables an offender to be committed to the Crown Court for sentence. It seems to us that that part of the Vagrancy Act has been repealed. Following the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1980–81 and the Criminal Justice Act 1982 which implemented that committee's recommendation, both begging and sleeping out ceased to be imprisonable offences. It is therefore no longer appropriate to commit such people for sentence to the Crown Court. The reason for committing someone to the Crown Court for sentence would be that the sentencing powers of the magistrates' courts are inadequate. But when Parliament decided in 1982 that those should not be imprisonable offences, it was, I presume by oversight, that this provision was left in the law. For that reason we do not argue that issue any further but propose, I hope with the agreement of the noble Earl, that that provision should be repealed as a consequential amendment. It is consequential upon what was enacted in 1982.
I have great reservations about the continuance of the offence of sleeping rough. It is not the number of people who are brought to the courts for sleeping rough that matters so much as the use which is made of the offence by the police in threatening prosecution unless those who sleep rough move on. That use of the power is not reported by the police. We therefore cannot know how often it is used. However, those who work among the people sleeping rough on the streets find that it is frequently used but not recorded among the offences. The offences recorded by the police under this section are no indication of the extent to which that power is used.
The amendment proposes to remove the power of a court to fine people for sleeping rough. A fine seems totally inappropriate for people who cannot find enough money to sleep at home. However, it gives the court an opportunity to offer help and assistance to people in that unfortunate position. That help and assistance comes through a probation order which the court may order, or a discharge. That must be preferable to a fine for someone who is so low in life that he sleeps rough. I invite the noble Earl to consider that as the more humane course of action.
In the Official Report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on 11th December 1990, at col. 489, the noble Earl states:
"The Act also provides for action to be taken against unlicensed pedlars, riotous or indecent behaviour by common prostitutes, dishonest fortune tellers and those who are found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose, as well as the offence of indecent exposure which the noble Lord would wish to be retained".
Again I suggest that the noble Earl was perhaps wrongly advised and that by oversight the Government overlooked Schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989 which repealed the offences committed by unlicensed pedlars and so on. In view of that repeal I hope that that part of the amendment satisfactorily disposes of that objection and that the noble Earl will agree accordingly.
In another observation of the noble Earl, he made the point that only aggressive beggars were
1626
prosecuted. But aggression is not apparent in the offence, look for it as one may in the Vagrancy Act. The experience of those working directly on the streets is that people can be, and frequently are, prosecuted where no element of aggression or intimidation whatever has been present. That cannot be right. Leaving aside the broader issues, I believe that it is right to restrict the court's sentencing powers to enable them to assist offenders rather than to punish them by way of a fine. After all, none of them—except possibly professional beggars—can afford to pay even a low fine. Those who are professional beggars will still be able to be fined.
I shall spare the House from listing them, but I shall be happy to give the noble Earl the alternative offences by which the more objectionable forms of behaviour of those who are on the streets could appropriately be dealt with.
I conclude briefly that the only people liable to be fined under the Vagrancy Act after the passage of this amendment would be professional beggars. In 1982 Parliament decided to remove imprisonment as a sanction. We therefore do not mention imprisonment. Of course it would still be possible for the police to arrest and detain people in police cells overnight prior to their appearance in court when the police believe that there is no address at which a summons can be served. One night's stay in prison is still a possibility.
We further propose to restrict the powers of the courts by keeping fines only for those who can be shown to be professional beggars. That is a reform which I hope the Committee will agree is reasonable and takes into account the Government's objection on a previous occasion. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My interest in the issue arises because, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who I am glad to see in his place, I am a trustee of the charity, Crisis. Throughout the year the charity is concerned with the problems of homeless people not only in our capital city but in urban and rural areas throughout the country.
I declare my firm interest in the issue on a clear basis. I believe homelessness and the begging associated with it to be a social problem. I regard it as bizarre that in the last decade of the twentieth century such an act should be criminal under a law passed in the immediate aftermath of the social problems of the Napoleonic wars. That argument may have a familiar ring to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He will recognise speaking in support of the amendment a number of Members who debated earlier in the Session the abolition of the Vagrancy Act in a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The Bill passed through this Chamber but I understand that there is no reasonable prospect of it passing through another place. If I am wrong and my noble friend tells me that the Government intend to give the Bill time, I shall readily be party to the withdrawal of this amendment.
On the assumption that the Crime of Vagrancy (Abolition) Bill will not become law we must deal with the situation as it exists. Therefore we must consider within the scope of this Bill what is the right penalty

1627
for begging for subsistence and for sleeping rough. I am sure that the common ground will be that the punishment for those offences —if offences they must be, and for this purpose I loyally accept that to be the state of the law—must fit the crime.
I need add little to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. However, perhaps I may comment briefly on the amendment's two central proposals. The first proposal is that only those beggars shall be fined who are begging for purposes other than subsistence, or who commit other conduct such as intimidation or aggression that gives rise to a breach of the peace or is punishable under other legislation. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those who beg for subsistence shall not be liable to a fine. It should be for the prosecution to prove that the purpose of begging is for some form of personal enrichment other than subsistence.
Perhaps I may ask a rhetorical question which is dangerous because sometimes it receives the wrong answer. Is it not daft that those who are begging in order to subsist should have an added financial burden imposed upon them for doing so? In the light of that, what will they do? What would any of us do if we were in that situation? We should find the incentive to return to begging increased by order of the court. On that basis I support that aspect of the amendment.
I turn to the second substantive element. It is the proposal that in no circumstances should someone be fined for sleeping rough. On the assumption which I find difficult to take but do so—that sleeping rough is somehow to be regarded as a criminal offence rather than a social problem—how does such degree of criminality as the Government can find within it require a fine to be imposed rather than help to be given? We know that many people who sleep rough are young or psychiatrically disordered. There is no evidence to show that people who sleep rough are in circumstances which warrant a fine being imposed upon them or their being at risk of a threat of a fine.
The amendment points the way firmly to their being given help. Perhaps I may ask another rhetorical question. Is it not help and not a fine that they want? I believe that the amendment accords with what can be regarded as humane, just and decent by right-thinking members of our society. Since I regard this Government as being humane, just and decent, I speak with the optimism that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will find reason for accepting the principle of the amendment. I support the amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Meston I speak in support of the amendment. It is almost unbelievable, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, that we are debating this subject. When I started at the Bar, 45 years ago, I went round the magistrates' courts dealing with people brought before the courts under the Vagrancy Act 1824. I could not believe what I was doing; yet here we are, 45 years later, still discussing the abolition of this Act. How refreshing it would be if, at long last, the Minister could stand up for once and say, "My goodness, having listened to the debate I agree entirely and I shall see that it is swept away." These are social
1628
problems and have nothing to do with the criminal law in any shape or form. Oh how slowly it all grinds on.
Surely we have reached the point at which the noble Earl can at last rise to his feet and say, "Look, we need discuss this no longer. Of course this is correct and I accept this amendment".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, my noble friend Lord Stallard and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, totally convincing. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. When I started at the Bar I frequently wondered not only what I was doing but why I was doing it and who would benefit from it.
In this instance it seems to me that 1824 is a long time ago. Such mischief as there may have been in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars is no longer with us, even under this humane and decent Government. I support the proposed amendment.
Lord Elton: If my noble friend is going to resist this desirable amendment I hope that he will explain not how such an ancient requirement should remain in the law because habeas corpus is a great deal more ancient. I do not believe that antiquity invalidates law—but that he will explain to me, because I cannot understand it, under what circumstances young people would choose to sleep rough if they had a viable alternative and how imprisonment might induce them to take that alternative choice. It will be interesting to hear also how fining people who are begging for subsistence will keep them away from crime.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps I may address very briefly the difference between the inadequate sheep and the professional goats among the beggars which exercised the mind of the noble Earl during a previous debate on this subject. The emergence of begging has been a recent and most unpleasant phenomenon. Surely it must be a passing phenomenon. We cannot imagine it continuing indefinitely.
As has been said, this will not go away unless we take action to remove the causes—lack of jobs, housing and so on. That is where the emphasis must be. When that is done there should be no justification for begging. The professional beggars who do not beg because of need can and should be dealt with properly by law.
The amendment provides specifically for that. However, the amendment rightly aims to remove the odium from the mere act of begging to meet real needs. There are people who beg to meet real needs. Sometimes they may be mistaken and there may be alternative ways of meeting their needs. I hold no brief for the professional beggar and have not much taste for haphazard giving to people who beg in the street. However, we need to distinguish between the two problems and we can do that.
The amendment does that. There are some—perhaps even many—who are either ignorant or inadequately motivated to work. In those cases the

1629
emphasis should be on providing support with information, which they often lack, and practical guidance. That can arid should be given under a probation order and not by fining or imprisonment. Those people should be given into the care of somebody who will get them back onto the right lines.
If they refuse to take advantage of the opportunity of that guidance and advice they leave themselves open to the charge of begging for money on which they do not depend. They can then be dealt with properly. However, the amendment finds a good way of distinguishing between the inadequate sheep on the one hand and the tiny minority of professional goats on the other.
Lord Stallard: The vagrancy Bill which I sponsored has been mentioned by Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that there were one or two reservations at the Second Reading of that Bill. This amendment is designed to take care of those reservations. Therefore, it seems to me that the misgivings raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at the end of that debate have all been met in this amendment.
The amendment goes further than that. It takes away completely the criminality aspect from the offence of begging for subsistence and sleeping rough. It introduces an element of assistance which we should all like to see. My interest stems from decades of experience on the streets with youngsters, old people, vagrants, the unemployed, the sick, the mentally ill, those released from prison, the homeless, and all the problems that they encounter. We used to say that the furthest one could carry a heavy suitcase from Euston was Camden Town. Therefore we had everything in Camden Town, certainly throughout the past 40 or 50 years.
The problem has now grown. The people involved are younger. They are attracted to the capital with false hopes through advertisements and are now in the trap of being unable to return home because of the shame that they may face or because they have been sucked in to all kinds of nefarious activities since they arrived.
The problem is worsening and the people involved are younger than ever. The answer is not imprisonment or the prospect of criminality. That is counterproductive to the extent that with a criminal record not only is it difficult to obtain an interview for a job, but it is impossible to obtain a job, even if one has somewhere to live; one cannot get either if one is homeless. It is crazy to continue mouthing the age old excuses that they are professional beggars, vagrants and so on. It is meaningless.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, a great deal of trouble, effort and expertise went into the tabling of the schedule of alternative statutes that could be used for any offence committed by those people the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at Second Reading, said he was afraid may be breaking the law. All those offences could be catered for. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, mentioned one which the noble Earl mentioned in error in winding up that debate. I must put on record that he wrote to me
1630
pointing out that it was an error, and corrected it in correspondence. Having said that, the noble Earl and everybody who has spoken tonight have removed any arguments that there may be against the amendment.
Earlier today we heard the noble Lord the Leader of the House making great speeches regarding public opinion and its effect. I speak to the public. I have received God knows how many letters since the introduction of the vagrancy Bill and had many interviews. Professional organisations have written to me; the latest is the BMA which now supports the humane approach suggested by both t he amendment and the Vagrancy Act. They cannot all be wrong. If the noble Lord the Leader of the House advocates listening to public opinion, why does he not do so? The public say that the law is outdated; it is counterproductive; it is outmoded. We should not treat those people like that. They need help, homes to live in, jobs to do and assistance.
That is the way the problem should be tackled. If we put as much energy into that as is used by the police force and the judiciary in picking up those alleged vagrants, scoundrels, vagabonds, fortune tellers and the whole list of people mentioned by the noble Earl at Second Reading, then I am sure that not only would the problem be solved but also public opinion—which appeared to worry the noble Lord the Leader of the House so much this afternoon—would be appeased.
Since the Second Reading of the Bill and since the introduction of the amendment the noble Earl has had time to rethink the position. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I await his reply with interest.
Earl Ferrers: I enjoyed the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that when he first went to the Bar he wondered, "What am I doing? Why am I doing it? What possible benefit can I be to anyone?" Those sentiments sometimes arise in my mind as a Minister. I sympathise with his feelings of those many years ago, which are still prevalent with people later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. in his usual persuasive way, asked why I could not stand up and say, "I have listened to what has been said. Of course I am wrong. I am always wrong and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is always right". I long to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I would rather the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, agreed with me; it would make things so much easier. However, I find it difficult to agree with him, though I shall do my best.
The clause would reduce or eliminate the penalties for offences under the Vagrancy Act. The maximum fine for begging would be reduced from the present level of £400 to £200 under the Bill's provisions. No fine can be imposed unless the court is satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money to support himself or herself. The penalty for sleeping rough, which is not an offence unless the person has been directed to suitable free accommodation and refuses, would be confined to a. discharge or a probation order. The magistrates' remaining powers to commit persistent offenders to the Crown Court would be repeated where the offenders can be dealt with for indecent exposure or being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose.

1631
We are familiar with the campaign to end the Vagrancy Act. As we have been reminded this evening, we had the opportunity to debate it last year. I do not blame the noble Lords, Lord Stallard, Lord Henderson and my noble friend Lord Alexander for having a second bite of the cherry. It cannot be said without comment that the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, went through your Lordships' House and is now in another place. Because it is feared that the Bill may not have success there, the opportunity has been taken to have another go at the problem.
It is important to get one issue absolutely straight. Homelessness and poverty are social matters of great concern. They should be tackled. One likes to think that that is being done albeit not hard enough or successfully enough under other legislation. It is wrong to think that beggars are necessarily poor because they are not. Some may be. The courts must take account of their means in setting a fine. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that a great many young beggars are now coming on to the streets and that that is awful. I remind him that not all these people are prosecuted.
The fact that there may be more beggars coming on to the streets is a matter for great regret. It is also something which we are all greatly concerned about. That does not mean to say that we should remove a stricture which the law has. The fact is that not all people who beg are necessarily poor. The courts have to take account of their means when they come to certify. Our provisions on unit fines are designed to make this more effective and realistic. If a person cannot pay he is unlikely to be given an unreasonable fine. The maximum penalty also needs to be set in order to allow for the worst kind of case; for example, if an offender threatens or intimidates passers-by and he has a tidy sum of money available. Some people who beg are not penniless. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, quoted me in connection with the Vagrancy Act and said that he had tried to meet the objections that I put forward.
I wonder whether we can reasonably require the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money to support himself, as the new clause states, before the court shall have power to impose any fine at all for begging. Means assessments should be done conscientiously for all offenders. It is taking too much on trust to give those who beg in the streets the special privilege of immunity from a fine because they are presumed to be penniless unless the prosecution successfully overcomes that high burden of proof.
I have mentioned that sleeping rough is only an offence in carefully defined circumstances; for instance, where a person has refused to go to free accommodation or where he causes a nuisance. In that regard there were only 16 convictions in the whole of England and Wales in 1989. Although it is rarely used, a fine can be a suitable disposal if more than a discharge is justified and the offence does not justify a probation order which must last for six months and requires the offender's co-operation. In the nature of
1632
things a recalcitrant rough sleeper is unlikely to give that co-operation. I also oppose the repeal of Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act. It has already been amended with the result that only the persistent offenders who commit indecent exposure or who are found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose can be sent to the Crown Court. These can be grave enough matters in my judgment to justify giving magistrates the opportunity of sending them to the Crown Court.
The case which has been put forward so often by many noble Lords concerns whether those who are poor, those who are sleeping rough, those who are homeless and those who are penniless should be caught under such provisions. The fact that they can be caught does not mean to say that they are caught. The strictures under this Bill, and indeed, under the Vagrancy Act, are there for those people who do not necessarily fall into that category but who are more determined beggars; and there are those. I think it is right that we should keep that provision, but at the same time deal in a much more social and humane way with the problems of homelessness, sleeping rough and being penniless.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask him one question arising out of his answer. He indicated that there were circumstances in which a fine might be an appropriate disposal for the offence of sleeping rough. Will he be good enough to give an illustration of any set of circumstances which might justify a fine merely for sleeping rough?
Earl Ferrers: The courts can have that disposal. It would be available for them to use if they considered the circumstances correct. I do not know all those who sleep rough. I have been out at night around London with the Salvation Army visiting those who are sleeping rough. It is a very illuminating sight. All I can tell my noble friend is that some people sleeping rough, it seemed to me, were not totally penniless. They had their own reasons for sleeping rough. I can tell the Committee of one instance where a person had a job at an abattoir. He was content to sleep rough in the Bull Ring. I do not know what his income was. I do not know whether what he was doing was within or outside the law. However, there are people who do have money and who do sleep rough. If a person were to find himself in front of the courts and the courts found that he had committed an offence, the courts might decide, if he had sufficient resources, that a fine would be a suitable penalty.
Lord Stallard: Before the noble Earl sits down, I accept that there are some people sleeping rough who have money. Of course there are. I know people who have come to London to seek employment but cannot get housing. One must realise that rents in London are nothing less than £100 for one room, £150 for two rooms and so it goes on. There are people who do not have that kind of money. So what do they do? They cannot give up their job; they have a family up north to keep; they have to keep as much money as they can.

1633
They are forced by circumstances to sleep rough. Should they be arrested and fined or prosecuted? Of course they should not.
Does the noble Earl accept that their situation has been worsened by government policy? The situation of young people, students, trainees and so on, has been worsened by dramatic changes in social security benefits. Many of those people are caught in this trap. They have no benefit. They cannot even afford a hostel, let alone proper accommodation. Would it not he more constructive to say that we will recommend that the Secretary of State for Social Security has another look at benefits to see whether the situation can be improved. That would be far more constructive than saying that we will reduce the fine to £200. One might just as well make it a million than reduce it to £200. Who has got £200 when he is sleeping rough on the streets? I do not know any with that kind of money.
The Government are taking a completely wrong approach. The amendment seeks a humane, reasonable and constructive approach rather than punishment.
Earl Ferrers: I accept the difficulty of hunting for a place to rent. The noble Lord says that it costs £100 a week and asks: who has got that? But nobody will be prosecuted for this kind of offence unless he was actually given shelter and refused to take it. It is only then that he comes within the ambit of possibly being prosecuted. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asks why the Government do not do something to help these homeless people. I recall, either in connection with the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, or in responding to a Question, that I have had a great deal of information about exactly what the Government have done and are doing over homelessness. I have not retained it all in my mind, but if the noble Lord wishes me to let him know exactly what the Government are doing, I shall happily do so. They have made quite a substantial contribution. It is only right that that should be so. However, I do not believe that we want to confuse the business about what we are doing as regards homelessness and sleeping rough with this particular piece of legislation, which deals with catching people who do not necessarily fall into that category but who sleep rough for other reasons.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Earl Ferrers, said a short while ago that he was longing for the day—or words to that effect—when he would be able to say to my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington that he agrees with him. He then added that he would find it even more agreeable if my noble friend were to agree with him.
We are looking forward to the time when the noble Earl will rise and say that, on the basis of a debate in this Chamber, the Government are prepared to look into a matter without making a final commitment. It really is not good enough. We have heard a very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. To put it no higher, it is extremely discouraging when one receives such an inflexible reply as that just given by the noble Earl.
1634
I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel able to be more accommodating when he subsequently reflects upon the matter. It seems to me that almost every speaker in the debate has made his position very clear. Moreover, we had a Bill on the matter introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which received overwhelming support. We are not asking the Government to accept the totality of the amendment, but we do ask them to at least move to some extent in the direction of what is proposed.
It is most astonishing that we should be having a debate in this Chamber in 1991 in which we are solemnly discussing how someone who is sleeping rough and who has virtually no resources can have a fine imposed upon him by a court which will lead almost automatically, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, to him having to go back on the streets to start begging in order to pay the fine or recover the money which he has spent on it.
Although the noble Earl seems to be wholly inflexible so far as concerns this Bill, he usually goes to much trouble in an effort to help us. I am not asking him to reply this evening, but I hope that on reflection he will at least consider discussing the matter again with his officials to see whether there can be some movement towards those who have put forward an unanswerable case.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has a lovely technique of putting forward a forceful argument; indeed, it is rather like a bulldozer shoving one along the road. However, he then concludes by saying that he does not expect me to reply. Of course I am only too happy to reply to him. I hope that I have not been inflexible in the matter. But, nevertheless, I am sure that he would find it surprising if the Government gave their view on a Bill which came before this place and then six months later, when an amendment covering similar ground was put forward, they took a different point of view. The Government have been consistent in the matter.
Further, when the noble Lord says that a person could be taken before the courts for sleeping rough and fined a certain sum of money which he could not possibly pay, he is not giving the courts any credit for fairness. After having taken into account a person's resources and finding that he has none, the court will not promptly fine him. If the noble Lord thinks that that will happen, he is not giving sufficient credence to the ability of the courts. Of course there are people who could fall into that category who may have resources. If such people are found to have committed an offence, and if they have the resources, the courts may feel that a fine is the right method of disposal. However, those people fall into a slender category.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly do not want to be a bulldozer on this or any other occasion. All I asked the noble Earl to do was to reflect on this matter following this debate. I am not asking him to make a commitment tonight. In the light of what he said that would be difficult for him to do. All I would say to him with the utmost goodwill is that he has been, if he will allow me to say so, astonishingly inflexible during the three days of this Committee stage.

1635
I realise that the noble Earl is not responsible for this particular part of the Home Office. All I say to him with the utmost goodwill is that I hope he will reflect on this and on other matters so that we do not get this repetition of reject, reject, reject on virtually every amendment moved from any quarter of the Committee however much support it may have. That is all I wish to say.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I must say that the noble Earl must be feeling lonely on the Front Bench, and I should like him to reflect on that loneliness. There is nobody in the Committee who has remotely supported him, and I would ask him to take seriously the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and reflect on the unanimous opinion expressed in this Committee. He has an interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage in which to do so.
The noble Earl made the astonishing remark that he found it peculiar that we should ask the Government to consider changing their mind within six months; the six months covering the passing of Lord Stallard's Bill in this House and the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. Why on earth should not the Government consider what is said in Parliament? That is what Parliament is for. It is there to try to persuade Ministers to take another view, or at least to consider another view.
Here is the noble Earl proud of the fact that he has not moved an inch in six months. I find that astonishing, and I think all the rest of us find that astonishing. We ask him to move in the next two or three weeks before the Report stage and to tell us, if he cannot take on board everything that we are proposing, in what way he would like it to be proposed.
I can see one respect in which he might like the amendment to be amended; for instance, in the scale of the fine. He might say that perhaps scale 2, whatever it is called, may be more acceptable than scale 1. That would be a perfectly reasonable amendment, and he might have other things to think about. But to come here and say that he is proud of not having changed his mind one jot or tittle in the six months' interval between the last time and today is, I should have thought, unacceptably inflexible on the part of the Government.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to be difficult with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but I have not found him to be someone who very often changes his mind.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should not have thought that two blacks make a white. That is, I think, the most feeble and most childish argument I have heard in the House in a long time. I am not ashamed to beg. I beg the noble Earl to adopt a more flexible attitude on this occasion if on no other. I beg, I may say to the noble Earl, without aggression. I do not want to be put in the position of King Lear, who said, "Oh, argue not the need" to those two harpies, Goneril and Regan, with whom the noble Earl
1636
apparently wishes to equate himself. I would find that an unhappy position to be in if I were the noble Earl sitting alone on the Front Bench.
I ask the noble Earl to consider the theme of everyone who has spoken in this Committee. What these people on the streets need is help rather than harassment, and care rather than criminality. If the noble Earl would kindly consider everything that the Committee has said in the light of my concluding phrases, I am sure that all of us would be extremely grateful to him, and he would find himself a good deal less lonely in the Committee than he now appears to be. With those concluding words, and with the hope that the noble Earl will perhaps drop something in my hat, I beg him to consider what we have said this evening before the next stage. I see no indication of movement on his part, no putting of his hand in his pocket, for instance—he is rather pointedly looking away from me. I am glad that he now turns in my direction and I therefore appeal to him. I see that I am unable to attract him to his feet to respond and I can do no more in the process of pleading. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert:
(" "mentally disordered", in relation to any person, means suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;").
Page 19, line 24, at end insert:
(" "pre-sentence report" has the meaning given by section 3(5) above;").
The noble Earl said: We discussed Amendment No. 74 with the other amendments on mentally disordered offenders during the first day in Committee. We have also discussed Amendment No. 75. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 19, line 37, at end insert ("and
(d) any other offence where, if it had been prosecuted as an offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecent assault on a woman) or section 15 of that Act (indecent assault on a man), consent would have provided a defence thereto.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment adds a qualification to the definition of sexual offences in Clause 25. It introduces the concept of consent as a defence by the parties to the offence, where these offences take place between men. The criterion of consent is also applicable for homosexual offences under Clauses 1 and 2 which may draw harsher sentences in the form of imprisonment as a result of the legislation.
The amendment is consistent with current sentencing by the courts for homosexual acts between two consenting adults involving a man over 16 but under 21. Neither goes to prison for such offences if both are 16 and over and both consented. Only if there is evidence of corruption, coercion or intimidation are prison sentences normally imposed.
The amendment is meant to ensure that no unintended effect of the Criminal Justice Bill increases sentencing for victimless consensual offences. I use this term advisedly because the term "victimless consensual offences" has been accepted by the Government. It may be of assistance to the Committee at this late hour briefly to run through the three offences which are normally involved in this kind of activity.
First, there is gross indecency which is invariably a consensual offence involving intimate sexual relations between two men which does not involve anal intercourse. Other legislation is used if one of the parties is unwilling, if the offence is not in private and if more than two people are present and/or if one of the parties is aged under 21.
In 1988—which is the last year for which one has accurate figures—there were 1,333 convictions and 163 cautions for gross indecency. Thirteen men were sent to gaol and three received sentences of between two and three years.
The second offence is soliciting, which is a public order offence, making it unlawful in a public place for a man to invite or suggest that another person engages in a sexual activity with him. It does not involve any physical contact. If it did, depending on the willingness of the people involved, it would be regarded as an indecent assault or gross indecency. Soliciting is usually only detected by undercover surveillance or police activity. It is extremely rare for a member of the public to be involved as a prosecution witness. Again, in 1988 545 men were convicted of this offence and 153 cautioned.
The third of these offences is procuring, which is the act of facilitating, abetting, encouraging or inviting the commission of sexual relations between men. I do not need to remind the Committee that that activity is entirely lawful under the law today. In 1988, 328 men were convicted of this offence and 39 cautioned.
It is worth noting that, in regard to all these crimes, repeat offences are, unfortunately, not uncommon. These laws criminalise activity which is accepted practice in most of Europe and which for many men is the only possible way in which they can have a means of sexual contact. In the Bill as originally drafted the courts would be invited to study the past records of offenders when sentencing and to consider heavy prison sentences in repeat offence cases. Conviction rates for the three offences that I have referred to run at about 90 per cent. because so many men who are charged are unwilling to contest the charges, as that attracts publicity which could ruin their lives. It is worth noting that a high percentage of males who indulge in this activity and have leanings towards homosexual activities unhappily lead what appear to be ordinary lives and often have wives and children. An unhappy aspect of sexual life in this country is that many who have tendencies of this kind are forced to keep them under cover and commit offences.
The amendment does not seek to exempt any defendant from existing penalties. It is important to stress that. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that consensual offences will not attract the higher
1638
penalties made possible by Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. It is clear that the penalties for offences of this kind that exist at present reflect, quite properly, the view of society as a whole about homosexual offences of this kind. The view of society may or may not change in the foreseeable future, but it seems certain that no one could possibly believe that serious physical or psychological harm resulted from participation in these homosexual activities, however strange or even distasteful they may seem to others. Thus the amendment is in keeping with the broad philosophy of Clause 1(7).
It is helpful at this stage to go back to the origins of the Bill last November, when various groups and individuals concerned about the current law involving homosexual offences became alarmed at some of the implications of the new legislation which was proposed. As originally drafted, the Bill included as causing serious harm buggery, indecency between men, soliciting and procuring and also offences relating to male prostitution. It is worth noting that it excluded most offences relating to female prostitution.
It reflects credit on the Government that, after a short period of consultation with responsible bodies, they recognised that there was a justifiable concern which ought to be met. That resulted in government amendments which made their intentions much clearer. The amendments were entirely free of discrimination, which had been a fear of homosexual bodies. Credit must also go to the reasonable and thorough way in which those individuals and bodies concerned about the legislation presented their anxieties to the Government.
Discussions covered three key areas. The first was the discriminatory state of existing laws relating to sexual activity between men. The second was the confused state of the law where the same charge applies for victimless offences as for criminal and coercive acts. The extent to which homophobia within the judicial system can corrupt even the best intentions of government would seem to make it necessary for the Government to take into account the drift and the content of this amendment.
The Government have acted with commendable fairness in accepting a great deal of what has been put to them and in amending the Bill accordingly. What I suggest is now needed is for the Government to monitor the effects when the Bill becomes law in order to see whether there is a negative effect in these areas where homophobic magistrates or judges are concerned. The word homophobic is not an attractive word but it is the only one available. It means those who have an almost pathological hatred of homosexual activities and crime. It is hoped that the Government will take a close interest in the results.
I have no intention of pressing the amendment but I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's views, which will be eagerly awaited in many quarters. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may begin by clashing in the gentlest possible way with the noble Viscount. I am no classical scholar but I believe that homophobic means precisely the opposite of what homosexuals claim it to mean. Homophobia can surely only mean

1639
an aversion to one's own kind. That is a minor point but I wanted to get it across because no one else seems to have picked up the point.
The amendment deals with homosexual behaviour between consenting adults. This may therefore be the right moment to refer to a recent court case, the outcome of which has worried a great many people including national newspapers of the highest repute. The case concerned a number of mainly middle-aged men, the majority of them model citizens in most aspects of their lives and some of whom, according to the press, held extremely responsible jobs, but who in one area of their lives—their sex lives—were undoubtedly perverts.
In a nutshell, it appears that those individuals got their pleasure, presumably their sole pleasure, from pain and discomfort being applied to their private parts, in some cases to the extent of having nails driven into the tender areas. Naturally it is repulsive to a normal man, and I would imagine to a normal woman, even to think about such painful procedures. Nevertheless, no minors were involved and indeed nobody under 21 was involved. All of those perverse activities took place entirely in private so that no passers-by could possibly have been offended. Amazingly, no one apparently needed any treatment on the National Health Service or any medical treatment whatsoever. Above all, no one had anything done to him without his wholehearted consent. That is the nub of the matter. Yet the participants received quite severe sentences of up to three years' imprisonment, to the surprise, and I think it is fair to say the indignation, of much of the national press.
It is curious that two men can inflict quite severe injuries on each other in a boxing match, whether in public or in private, without falling foul of the law. As I understand it an individual can quite legally cut off his or her finger with a carving knife should the individual for some strange reason feel inclined to do so. So the decision of the court in the case in question seems thoroughly illogical.
Even if one does not happen to be one of those who subscribes to the belief that individuals have the right to do as they please with their own bodies so long as nobody else is harmed thereby, one must surely agree that prison is the very worst place to send people who in this particular narrow sphere of their lives are obviously deranged—round the bend, in popular parlance. After all, prison must accentuate such tendencies and, moreover, provide an opportunity for them to be played out.
One could agree to leave such individuals, distasteful though they are, alone, so long as they remain thoroughly discreet. That is a course which I would favour. Alternatively, if one happens to be of a bossy turn of mind one could legislate to compel them to submit to medical treatment. Whether any such treatment would do the slightest good I have no idea. I suspect not, but you could always have a go. However, prison seems both utterly wrong and counter-productive. I should be glad to hear the opinion of noble Lords or, failing that, of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on that point.
10 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: At this late hour it is difficult to take up time on a matter such as this, but I have had difficulty in understanding the drafting of the amendment. As I understand it, sexual offences which may draw unto them the extended sentence under Clause 1(7) should be excepted where consent would be a defence as it is in charges of indecent assault; in other words, as my noble friend Lord Falkland put it, any consensual sexual offence as mentioned in the interpretation clause, Clause 25. It is therefore a matter of importance and, as it deals only with male homosexuality, it is particularly important to persons who are homosexually inclined. One is therefore entitled to take a little time on the matter.
There is no victim; there is agreement to what is going on whatever form the sexual offence takes. Surely there are no circumstances in which such offences could possibly entitle a court to give not only an appropriate sentence but an extended sentence. If the noble Earl says, "Ah, but no court would ever do that", the point is that the inclusion of such offences in that interpretation clause sends out a signal to all the courts in the country that the Government take the view that those offences are potentially of a type which should attract, in the worst case, not only a serious sentence but a quite exceptionally serious sentence. Surely that simply cannot be right.
The noble Earl has been a little unkind to me because he has not noticed that on at least three occasions during the passage of the Bill I have said that I think that the Government are right about this matter. He did not get up and say, "Oh, how nice to hear that", on any of those occasions. I hope that on this occasion he will perhaps redress the balance.
I now deal with the two matters of gross indecency and importuning by male persons. The criminal law of this country is far harsher on those homosexual offences than is any other European country. They are simply offences by law. They are nuisances. They are not offences which should attract long criminal sentences. If such behaviour between consenting adults is made criminal, surely penalties should be in proportion to the harm that is done.
The trouble with such offences is that the public harm that they do, the personal disgrace to which my noble friend referred, and the character assassination are out of all proportion to the significance of the offence itself. To be convicted of some miserable offence with another man in a public lavatory is sometimes to bring absolute disaster on the man concerned, his employment and his family which is out of all possible proportion to the public harm caused by two men misbehaving in a public place. That is so much so that the circumstances of these offences give rise to widespread corruption and if not corruption itself then to the temptation to corruption on the part of the police.
Vice squads patrol the lavatories. They patrol parks and dark alleys in built-up areas. They dress in plain clothes and they act, as we all know—it is known not only by those who practise in the criminal courts but by great numbers of the public—as agents provocateurs in those circumstances. What happens is that

1641
they do not in fact observe any criminal act at all. They wait until they see someone who is loitering around a lavatory or dark place. They can see that that person is homosexually inclined. After a period of time the person disappears into the lavatory and then comes out again. They then make an arrest. The evidence that they give in court is simply evidence by rote which is always exactly the same. Every man who perpetrates such an offence always behaves in exactly the same way and of course the police have not seen it at all. The evidence is that the person is arrested for what they are and not for what they do.
The offence is very much akin to the offence of the suspected person loitering with intent under the old Vagrancy Act to which reference has been made. Recently, after years of agitation, we finally succeeded in getting rid of it. Why? What was the mischief? The mischief was that people were arrested for what they were and not for what they were doing. The offences of importuning in lavatories and gross indecency alleged between men in public places are of exactly the same kind. It lends itself to all forms of corruption and indeed to the ruin of a person's character.
It seems to me and no doubt to many other Members of the Committee quite outrageous that those offences should be left in the interpretation clause. It is difficult enough to interpret the interpretation clause, but when one ferrets about, as my noble friend has done, one finds that those offences have been left in it. They should not be there.
I hope that the noble Earl will follow the excellent approach of his colleague Mr. Patten in another place who listened to the arguments, came forward and said that he would think again about the matter. As a result the amendment on the Marshalled List has been produced in the name of the noble Earl. Perhaps the noble Earl could follow that example, complete the matter by taking these offences out of this clause and at least accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I should be the first to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that if I was unfair to him I deeply apologise. He was good enough to agree with the Government on a number of occasions—I think he said three but I did not remember to count them. He did indeed say so and I am grateful to him for having acknowledged that he thought that the Government were right.
The noble Viscount's amendment reopened the debate which was commonly known as the Clause 25 issue. It might be helpful to explain to the Committee how the Government view this matter and what we have tried to do about it.
As the Committee will know, the Bill's sentencing provisions enable a court to impose a custodial sentence on someone who is convicted of a sexual offence, in the interests of protecting the public from serious harm from him. In deciding the length of sentence the court may impose a longer sentence than the seriousness of the offence would merit, again in the interest of protecting the public from serious harm from the offender. Clause 25 defines sexual offences so as to include most such offences—for example, rape, buggery, incest, indecent assault, indecency between men and solicitation by a man. There was concern that
1642
the courts might interpret those provisions in such a way as to justify longer sentences for persons who were convicted of offences involving minor homosexual acts, where all parties consented, and there was no risk of serious harm.
The Government did not believe that the Bill was in fact open to this interpretation or would have been so interpreted. Certainly it was never the intention of the Government that it should be. We nevertheless moved, by introducing amendments to the Bill in another place, to allay the concerns which had been expressed—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, gave credit. These defined "serious harm", in cases involving sexual offences, so as to make it clear that a longer custodial sentence could be imposed only if this was necessary in order to protect members of the public from the risk of death or serious mental or physical injury caused by a further sexual offence committed by the offender in question. This makes it clear that minor and victimless homosexual activities cannot be used in order to justify a heavier sentence to protect the public. We thought then, and still do, that this was sufficient to meet any reasonable concern about the operation of these provisions.
Perhaps we may consider the amendment for a moment. I am delighted to say that it is my turn to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I, like he, find it difficult to understand the amendment because its effect is not entirely clear. That is because it requires the courts to sentence for one offence by analogy with another. However, one of the intended effects seems to be to exclude from the definition of sexual offences in Clause 25 of the Bill any offence of indecency between men both of whom were aged 16 or over and both of whom consented.
There are, I think, real difficulties with this approach. Establishing consent is by no means straightforward in every case. It for example, be difficult to establish consent or otherwise in cases where an older man—a respected uncle perhaps—persuaded a boy in his late teens, with inducements, to take part in a homosexual act.
I am not trying to argue that consent is never a relevant consideration in these kinds of case, but simply that the matter is not as clear cut as this amendment would suggest. As I have already explained, the amendments made to the Bill in another place already ensure that, where there really is no risk of serious harm to potential victims, the courts will not have the power to impose a more severe sentence than is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
The amendment is therefore, I believe, unnecessary. And I fear that it would also have side effects which I am sure the noble Viscount cannot have intended. For example, it would seem to remove from the power to give a heavier sentence in order to protect the public —which in this case would be the remainder of his family—incest with a girl aged 16 or over where she gave her consent.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was kind enough to say that he did not intend to press the amendment. However, he wished to know whether the Government would be prepared to monitor what is

1643
happening. I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall monitor carefully the effects of the Bill, including this part. I hope that that reassurance will assist the noble Viscount.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Earl for his courteous and full reply. I should like to study what he has said and consider the implications. I am not absolutely certain about the doubts that he expressed on consent. I believe that the example he gave about the uncle would be an unlikely event to take place in a public lavatory. It would more likely take place in the home and, if the scenario that he described were to take place in the way that I understood, it would probably come under the heading of coercion or indecent assault. I am not clear about the dangers which the Minister visualises in certain types of consent as he has implied. I should like to look at the matter and reserve the right to come back at a later stage.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may make one comment and apologise for not having been present during the early part of the debate. Members on these Benches also wish to study the precise implications of the wording of the amendment. We too reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The Minister said that the matter will be monitored. Precisely who will be asked to do that?
Earl Ferrers: I cannot give the names of the people and the noble Lord would not expect that. However, it will be the responsibility of the Home Office.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will it be carried out within the department?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, it will.
The Viscount of Falkland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75B:
Page 19, line 42, at end insert ("and includes an offence which is required to be charged as arson (whether or not it would otherwise fall within this definition).").
The noble Earl said: The amendment ensures that the courts continue to have the necessary powers to protect the public from serious harm from offenders convicted of arson. Members of the Committee will recall that under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill custodial sentences and longer sentences may be given to protect the public from violent and sexual offenders. That reflects our view that a distinction should be drawn between offences against the person, on the one hand, and offences against property on the other. Arson does not, however, fit very neatly into either of these categories. On reflection we have concluded that it has more in common with violent offences than with property offences and that heavier sentences to protect the public should be available for it.
A charge of arson may be brought, broadly speaking, in one of two forms. The first is arson with intent to endanger life, which is an offence which is triable only on indictment. This would already fall within the definition of a violent offence under Clause 25. The second type of charge—that is, arson other than arson endangering life —would not at present do so. As the Bill stands a custodial sentence or a longer sentence could not be imposed where the offender was convicted of an act of arson which had not on that occasion endangered anyone's safety, even if it were clear that on a future occasion his activities might well result in someone's death or serious injury.
Some arsonists are disturbed individuals who cannot control their impulses. They share some of the qualities of offenders who commit violent and sexual offences. That is why a maximum of a life sentence is available for offences of arson, even if the person is not charged with arson endangering life. The long-held view of Parliament and the courts, which I am sure is right, is that custodial sentences may need to be given in order to protect the public from harm from arsonists.
It is often largely a matter of chance whether anyone is hurt by an act of arson. A building which an arsonist sets alight may or may not be occupied. Even if it is not it may only be a matter of time before a further offence is committed in which someone does get hurt. We believe that the courts should be able to pass protective sentences in such cases.
The courts need their powers to pass longer sentences on arsonists in order to protect the public. That is illustrated by the number of arsonists in the prison population. On 30th June 1989 there were 62 prisoners serving life sentences for arson. There were only two larger groups of offenders sentenced to discretionary life sentences—183 were convicted of manslaughter and 127 convicted of rape.
We are not, of course, saying that offences of arson will automatically attract longer sentences. The courts will still need to be satisfied under Clause 1(7) that members of the public need to be protected from the risk of death or serious personal injury that might be caused by further similar offences committed by that offender. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that arson represents a special case. No other offences are comparable in being not violent as presently defined in Clause 25 but capable of demonstrating a propensity to dangerous behaviour which puts the public at risk. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 19, line 43, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
(2) For the purposes of this Part, an offence is associated with another if—

(a) the offender is convicted of it in the proceedings in which he is convicted of the other offence, or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence; or

(b) the offender admits the commission of it in the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence and requests the court to take it into consideration in sentencing him for that offence.

(3) In this Part any reference, in relation to an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him.").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. It was discussed with Amendment No. 6 on the first day in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, Amendment No. 76ZA:
Line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I wish to move this amendment because this is the only opportunity to do so. Although the noble Earl's amendment has been described by him as technical, Clause 1(2) states:
"the court shall not pass a custodial sentence … unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one other offence associated with it, was so serious".
In other words, the most severe community sentence would not reflect the seriousness of the two offences together.
As regards paragraph (b), one of the other offences may be an offence which the defendant asks the court to take into consideration. My amendment suggests that paragraph (b) should be omitted. I understand that the subsection prevents an aggregation of a number of less serious offences in order to justify a custodial sentence. I accept that entirely as a principle worthy of support. It limits the aggregation to one other conviction in the same proceedings or, as I have said, one other matter which is asked to be taken into consideration.
The problem is that an offence asked to be taken into consideration is not in law a conviction. That is an offence about which the offender makes a request to the court. The court may or may not agree to that request. The prosecution and the police may know nothing whatever about the offence. There is no presentation of evidence. There is no statement of the surrounding circumstances, there is no arraignment and no indictment. The full facts and circumstances are not necessarily before the court and, by the very necessity of the procedure, cannot be before the court at the time of sentencing. It is an entirely informal procedure which enables an accused person to clear his record and, indeed, his conscience. It helps the police to increase their clear-up record. Undoubtedly, the procedure serves a useful purpose.
It seems to be a dangerous and shifting sand on which to found a prison sentence for such a matter to be allowed to tip the balance between a community and custodial sentence. That seems to be a very dangerous procedure. Of course, one of the dangerous results of this provision is that on the face of it it will deter offenders from asking the court to have matters taken into consideration. Quite obviously, one could not advise a defendant charged with one offence, which clearly would not justify a custodial sentence, to stand up and say, "Well, will you please take one other matter into consideration about which the police know nothing?" One would have to advise a defendant that if he does that, then he is almost bound
1646
to receive a custodial sentence. Therefore it will be extremely difficult from now on to persuade defendants to have matters taken into consideration. That useful informal procedure will, T fear, be set at naught.
The solution to the problem is for the CPS, or whoever is prosecuting, to ensure that the relevant offences known to the police are included in the indictment. If a defendant makes any form of confession, if the prosecuting authority feel that it is of sufficient seriousness, it should be included in the indictment. If it is not in the indictment it should not formally be used for sentencing. That does not mean that the court should not be able to take it into consideration and that the matter should not be allowed to be cleared up. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. The fundamental point here is that a request for an offence to be taken into consideration is clearly different in law from a conviction, as the noble Lord said. It goes back to the case of Howard. Lord Justice Russell argued that issue at some length. During the course of his judgment he said that he wished to be able to hold that an offence which he had been asked to take into consideration was the same as a conviction, but he felt constrained not to do so. As he pointed out, the full circumstances of such an offence were not before the court; there was no disclosure of the prosecution case; full evidence had not been heard. In such circumstances it would surely be wrong to imprison an offender wholly or partly on the basis of an offence of which the court, by definition, had only partial knowledge.
I take the point also, and underline it, that it is likely to deter offenders from admitting offences to be taken into consideration, thereby damaging the efficacy of a valuable system which enables the police to clear up offences. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, makes a powerful point and we support it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One measure of police efficiency is widely accepted—I am not sure sensibly —to be the percentage clear-up rate. It is the view of many that one way in which one can make a judgment on the efficiency of an individual police force is to take account of what that clear-up rate is. If we are moving to a situation in which, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Richard, defendants will be deterred from having offences taken into consideration, the consequences could be significant. I hope that the Government have considered the matter and discussed it with the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and others, who will certainly have a view on the question.
Earl Ferrers: It has long been the practice that, when people are convicted of an offence, they may ask the court, when passing sentence, to take into consideration other offences which they have committed. The system worked well. Everyone seems to have benefited.

1647
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that it enabled the police to clear up large numbers of offences. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rightly said, the percentage clear-up rate is an important statistic. It is one which helps the police and the inspectors of the constabulary to discover how successful they are in dealing with crime. The system saves the courts time by enabling offences which the offender is prepared to admit to be dealt with without further ado. It benefits the offender because, by asking for his other offences to be taken into consideration, he wipes his slate clean. Therefore, it has a great many advantages. The amendment would make it almost impossible to continue with that system and it would create a curious situation. A defendant might still ask for other offences to be taken into consideration when the court was sentencing him for the offence for which he had been convicted. However, the court would be unable to do so. Such an offence would not qualify as an associated offence and could not therefore be reflected in the sentence it passed. The offender would be able to admit previous offences but, having done so, the court would be unable to penalise him for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that it would deter offenders from admitting previous offences. I think that that is true. If so, that would be a disadvantage. It is entirely up to the offender whether he asks for other offences to be taken into consideration. No doubt he would refrain from doing so if he thought that it would be to his disadvantage. Where an offender actually asks for other offences to be taken into consideration it must be right that in deciding what sentence shall be appropriate the court should be able to weigh those offences in the same way that it weighs the offences of which the defendant has been convicted. When a court takes such offences into account it mitigates the penalty in view of the co-operation which the offender has shown in admitting the offences.
As the new clause introduced by government Amendment No. 71 makes clear, that will continue to be so under the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will agree that Amendment No. 71 is better as it is and that we should encourage the admission of offences by people who have been convicted and that they should be able to wipe the slate clean.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I wonder whether the noble Earl has understood the amendment. It is not a question of making it impossible to continue with the system or of courts being unable to take matters into consideration. Under paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 76, the court is enabled to pass a custodial sentence if the offence asked to be taken into consideration is used for that purpose. The only purpose of the amendment is to remove that particular facility. Courts will be able to continue to take matters into consideration whenever they wish to do so. This amendment does not touch that in any shape or form. Courts will go on taking matters into consideration. The point of the amendment is only to avoid the
1648
power of the courts to use such an offence in order to justify custody. Perhaps the noble Earl will give the matter further thought. In his reply it seemed that he had completely misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly consider and take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. If I have missed the purpose of the amendment I apologise to him. The provision applies not only to the decision on the use of custody but also to the length of custody. All the offences of which the offender has been convicted or has asked to be taken into account are dealt with. If the court had no power to reflect offences which the offender had asked to be taken into consideration in setting the length of sentence there would be no point in enabling the offender to ask for offences to be taken into consideration. As I understand it, that would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, says that I have got it wrong, I shall certainly look at the matter and see if I have. In that case I shall contact him.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Earl is most gracious. On that basis I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
On Question, Amendment No. 76ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 76, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 76 agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No.76A:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("The Life Sentences Review Tribunal
.—(1) There shall be a tribunal, to be known as the Life Sentences Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this Part of this Act.
(2) Schedule (Life Sentences Review Tribunal) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 76B, 76C and indeed 77A, 77B and 77C, are linked or consequential to each other. The matters concerned in Amendments Nos. 76A, 76B and 76D constitute together a scheme under which a judicial process shall be applied to determining whether or not life prisoners shall be released. This was the subject of earlier debate. I can see no reason to discuss them further. I do not know whether it is in order for me to move Amendments Nos. 76A, 76B and 76D together. If it is not, I move Amendment No. 76A. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: In an effort to help the Committee, which I imagine would not wish to divide at this hour, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not to press this and succeeding amendments on the basis that, obviously, I have to and will consider the consequences of the earlier decisions of the Committee on Amendments Nos. 69ZA and 69A. I shall also consider these other amendments which we discussed at the same time and which—I agree with the noble Lord—are fairly closely linked with them. If, at the

1649
end of that consideration, the noble Lord is dissatisfied with anything I have to say, he will be able to return to these matters at a later stage.
Lord Nathan: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that suggestion. When I opened my remarks in introducing Amendment No. 69ZA relating to the abolition of the mandatory life sentence, I referred to this as part of a scheme of things constituting the recommendations of the Select Committee. On the undertaking of the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he will consider these matters and on the clear understanding that we may come back to this matter, which we regard as an important element of the whole scheme put before the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76B not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 76C:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Tribunal to review life sentences in cases other than murder
.(1) There shall be a tribunal, to be known as the Life Sentences Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), for the purpose of exercising the powers of review of life sentences in cases other than murder.
(2) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of every life prisoner convicted of an offence other than murder to the Tribunal for review not later than two years before the expiry of the penal term applicable to his case.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to any directions given by the Tribunal in regard to a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under this section.
(4) In this section "penal term" means the sentence of imprisonment which the court is required by section (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) to state in open court as being the sentence it would have passed if it had not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life.
(5) Schedule (Review of Life Sentences in Cases Other than Murder) and Schedule (Life Sentences Review Tribunal) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for what the Leader of the House said. He will realise that this issue involves the non-mandatory life sentence. He will know that many of us attach high priority to this question as well as to the other. It is part of a scheme. I do not propose to move the amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
[Amendment No. 76C not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 76D to 76F not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Duty to release short-term and long-term prisoners]:
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Richard: I gave the Government notice that I wished to speak on Clause 27 stand part. Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not be lengthy in my remarks. However, I believe that this a convenient moment during the Bill's proceedings when one should perhaps look again at the possible results of the Government's proposed changes to the parole system.
I should tell the Committee that I am concerned about the effect of the decision to change the parole
1650
release point from one-third to one-half. I believe that it is likely to result in an increase in the prison population as prisoners would inevitably have to serve longer periods of imprisonment. That was clearly not the intention of the Carlisle Committee. I am delighted to see that the chairman of that committee is present in the Chamber.
The Carlisle Report makes quite clear that its proposals were designed to be accompanied by a change in sentencing levels to ensure that the actual time spent in custody was not increased. The report says:
"We believe that the new scheme which we have proposed … should provide the springboard for a thorough reassessment of present sentencing levels…It would be an unbalanced approach and add undesirably to the overall quantum of punishment to enhance the meaning of sentences in the way which we propose without at the same time working for a reduction in present tariffs".
A little later the report states:
"There is a risk that the disappearance of release at a third and the increased liabilities which we propose for the latter part of the sentence could add possibly substantially to the prison population".
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Carlisle Report. It continues:
"We have proposed the scheme … in the hope and expectation that it will be accompanied by the changes in sentencing practice which we wish to see".
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made the point very clearly in a debate on 30th November 1988 when he said (at col. 318) that the changes,
"should be accompanied by a determined effort by the judiciary and those in politics to reduce the length of sentences that are being passed, particularly in the middle band".
I am concerned to note that this Bill does very little, if anything, to provide for the effective sentencing reforms which the Carlisle Committee and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, felt would be necessary. It would be absurd if the effect of a change designed to rationalise parole ensured that prisoners who are currently deemed safe to be released on parole after having served one third of their sentence were now not to be released until the one half point had been reached. If that happened, the likely result would be an increase in the prison population. As I understand matters, that is something which we are all anxious to avoid. I should be grateful to hear the Government's views as to how they propose to avoid this particular danger.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was intending to speak on Clause 27 stand part. At this late hour, I shall not make a lengthy defence of what we proposed in our report. I merely say to the noble Lord that the committee which I had the honour to chair carefully considered what was the appropriate proportion of a sentence which should be served in those short-sentence cases where it is proposed that when that sentence has been served the person concerned should automatically be released. We believed that to propose a system whereby a person should automatically be released after having served only one third of his sentence would have been unacceptable to the public. We believed that the right proposal was that a person should serve one half of the sentence imposed. That is why we made the recommendation.

1651
I should also tell the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that we recognised that if in fact the sentences remained the same in length, and therefore people who are serving one third of their sentence at present then found themselves having to serve one half, it would mean that some people would spend longer in prison than is the case at present. It is right that we coupled our proposal that one half of a sentence should be served with a clear recommendation that it should be implemented and that, at the same time, a determined effort should be made to get down the length of sentences in that area of sentencing so as to reflect the effect of the proposals we made.
I believe that that was the right approach. I trust that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I do not attempt at this hour of night to expand further on the reasons which led us to that decision. I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that we went most carefully into the matter and we believed that it was right to recommend automatic release for the one half point rather than the one third point of the sentence.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is always tempting to begin a discussion on some aspects of the parole scheme, but this is rather late in the evening to do so. By and large I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It was one of the matters in Lord Carlisle's report about which I had some anxiety. It means that a number of people who represent no risk to the public will be kept in prison longer than is necessary. As the noble Lord said, while there is undoubtedly a risk, unless there is a change in sentencing practice in the courts there could be a substantial increase in the size of the prison population. I hope that will not take place.
The question that I should like to put to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—and I am not asking him to deal with this matter tonight; I should be happy to have a letter from him on this question—concerns a matter that does not appear in the Bill but which follows directly from the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and a recommendation that has been accepted by the Government. In future the reasons will be given why people have been denied parole. I have expressed my view on this on a number of occasions in the past, and I do not intend to repeat it this evening.
The matter that troubles me was dealt with in the noble Lord's report on this question, and it is whether a person making a statement to a probation officer —possibly a home probation officer—possibly the wife of a person in prison, or the girl friend of a wife of a man in prison—will be told by the probation officer that it is possible, or indeed likely, that what she says will be disclosed to the man in prison. This is a significant risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues in their report, in supporting the idea of giving reasons, indicated that they too recognised that there was a risk so far as this was concerned. They said it would only apply in possibly a small number of cases, and that may be true, but this is undoubtedly a serious
1652
matter. If in fact something is disclosed in a home circumstances report to a man who has a record of considerable violence in his past criminal record, the persons concerned could inadvertently be putting themselves at risk in the future.
What I want to know is what arrangements are being made for the probation service and anybody else who may be concerned to tell those concerned that there will be full disclosure to the inmate. I have put the matter as clearly as I can, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl could deal with it in correspondence. The matter does not appear on the face of the Bill, but as the Government have said that they have accepted this recommendation I assume that it will be implemented by some form of administrative arrangement.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to that last question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I shall certainly look into it. He has identified an important issue that we shall have to consider as we move towards openness in the parole system. I should like to take up the noble Lord's offer to consider it and write to him about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was concerned about prisoners being released after half the sentence, and he thought that they ought to be released after a third. We had the advantage of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow who actually produced the report, and I think he said almost everything that I could have said, and a great deal better too. The noble Lord shakes his head.
Lord Richard: I obviously did not make myself clear. The point I was making was that under the new proposals there is a great danger of an increase in the prison population. As the Carlisle Report said, that must be balanced by a change in sentencing practice. I was asking the Government what steps they were taking to ensure that the changes in sentencing practice take place and that there is not an increase.
Earl Ferrers: I was coming to that. If we look at the straightforward calculations, if a person spent one-third of the time in prison and he will now spend one-half of the time in prison, the chances are that one might expect the prison population to increase. However, I do not believe it is as simple as that. The majority of prisoners will be released after serving half their sentences. At present some are released earlier because they get parole, others are released later because they do not get parole. We believe that the effect of the provisions on the prison population should be broadly neutral. There may be an increase in the prison population because prisoners will be liable to be returned to prison under Clause 33 on conviction of a further imprisonable offence.
However, the view of my noble friend's committee, which we share, is that by restoring meaning to the sentence passed, the proposals would justify a reduction in the average length of sentence which would offset this. I have no doubt that the magistrates and judges will note what my noble friend's committee said and take it into consideration when they pass sentence.

1653
I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but it is difficult to look forward to the future and guess what will happen. We believe that the effect will be fairly neutral, but one can never guarantee that.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  THE GULF WAR: ALLIED GROUND CAMPAIGN CODE NAME
  THE GULF WAR: ALLIED GROUND CAMPAIGN CODE NAME
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO NON-MILITARY TARGETS
  THE GULF WAR: DAMAGE TO NON-MILITARY TARGETS
  THE GULF WAR: DEGREE OF FORCE
  THE GULF WAR: DEGREE OF FORCE
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES, 2 MARSHAM STREET
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES, 2 MARSHAM STREET
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS ACT 1979: CONSULTATION
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS ACT 1979: CONSULTATION