Sitting of 22 April 1991

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

    Rail Services (North-West)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving rail services to the north-west.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): British Rail is planning to upgrade Intercity west coast main line services, involving investment of some £750 million in new rolling stock, signalling and track improvements. British Rail recently invited tenders for the new trains.
    Regional railways' north transpennine express services from Newcastle to Liverpool have already benefited from the introduction of the latest class 158 diesel units. They were brought into the service in January this year.
    Mr. Butler: What provisions will be made for direct passenger services between the north-west and the channel, given that the regional sets that British Rail was meant to produce will not be ready on time? Is there any news about the location of the freight terminals in the north-west, a decision that has been long awaited?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that there are design problems with the trains for daytime through services. It is not a resource constraint on the Government but a problem with the manufacturers designing trains that will be able to run on the lines north of London where there is overhead electricity and a need to split the longer TGV trains witch will serve the capitals. I very much hope that those services will be in place as soon as possible. In the interim between the opening of the tunnel and those trains running, we expect that British Rail will run services into Waterloo from the north-west so that passengers can interconnect quickly. As for night services, there is no reason to believe that they will be delayed on the west coast main line.
    For freight services, British Rail intends to operate two terminals, one in Liverpool and one in Manchester. I hope that before too long British Rail will have made the final decisions about the precise locations.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that an overnight sleeper service is desirable from the channel tunnel to the north-west if for no other reason than that the tourism industry in the north-west and in Scotland requires such a service?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important. If he has not seen the designs of British Rail and of some of the potential suppliers of those services, perhaps he might avail himself of an opportunity to do so and comment on the quality of service that will be available on sleepers and on overnight services from Paris and Brussels, which will run non-stop through London and up the west coast main line.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will those improvements in the rail service to the north-west, which I welcome, lead to an abandonment by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) of the proposed Greater Manchester northern and western relief road? Will the Minister have a word with him to tell him that the rail service is improving and that therefore he need not proceed with the plan, which is much resented and disapproved of by my constituents?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's sentiments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but I am bound to say that road investment in the north-west—especially in the Greater Manchester conurbation—has been significant in recent years, although there is a great deal further to go. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Snape: May I return the Minister to the question of rail services and especially to rail safety in the north-west? Is he aware that three of the most senior operating managers on the London Midland region have been removed from their jobs at a moment's notice because they were courageous enough to speak out about the impact on safety of present financial policies? Does he accept that in the event of a serious accident on British Rail arising from those policies, we shall hold the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers responsible?
    Mr. Freeman: Safety is the pre-eminent concern of not only British Rail, but the Department of Transport. I am aware of the specifics of the case of the three individuals who have been named. They are not the only guardians of the quality of safety on British Rail. Responsibility rests primarily with the chairman and with the board of British Rail. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of rail safety not only in terms of resource expenditure, but in ensuring that standards on existing equipment are maintained.

    Speed Limits
    Sir David Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to limit the speed of vehicles on leaving motorways.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is the responsibility of every motorist to drive safely and that includes observing the speed limit. We are monitoring the use of experimental yellow bar markings on slip roads to make drivers more aware of their speed.
    Sir David Mitchell: Will the Department erect repeater 70 mph speed limit signs on the A303 west of the M3? Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of deaths, injuries and other accidents that have occurred on that section of road, including a nine-car pile-up into the back of a farm tractor at the weekend?
    Mr. Chope: I am well aware of the excessive speed at which many motorists travel on that stretch of road and of the number of accidents that have been occasioned. I know that the police take the issue of enforcement seriously. Earlier this month, they booked 59 drivers on that stretch of road; the average speed at which they were travelling was 94 mph. I do not think that the speeding is so much inadvertent as deliberate and that is why I am sceptical about the idea of putting up repeater 70 mph limit signs. I have asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to look at that section of road to see what can be done to increase compliance with the speed limit. Largely as a result of the pressure from my hon. Friend, we have in the roads programme a major improvement to the part of the road between Bullington Cross and Andover, where many of the serious accidents have occurred. I hope that we shall be able to implement that soon.

    Fishing Vessel Losses
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past four years; and what was the number of fishermen drowned in such vessel losses.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Figures for 1990 are not yet available. For the years 1986 to 1989 inclusive, the numbers of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost were 19, 14, 22 and 22. The numbers of related deaths of fishermen were 11, four, 18 and 16.
    Dr. Godman: Since I tabled the question, the Portsmouth trawler Wilhelmina has been lost, with its six-man crew, as the Minister will know. He and his officials need to do far more to enhance the safety of fishermen. When will he acknowledge the need for the provision of immersion suits on every fishing vessel over 10 m long? The carriage of such suits would save the lives of some fishermen. When will the Minister come to terms with that need?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman will know that an investigation is continuing into the Wilhelmina. It is always sad and unfortunate to have to record the loss of a fishing vessel. Over the past 20 years, the number of losses each year has not changed very much, although in each case it is a particular tragedy. I will look at the question of immersion suits.
    Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend will recall that I raised with him last week the loss of the Wilhelmina J, a Portsmouth vessel, over Easter. There was a memorial service last week in Portsmouth, where the incident was taken very seriously. We all have sympathy for the relatives of the six people who lost their lives on board that vessel. My hon. Friend has assured me that an inquiry is proceeding as fast as it can and I do not wish to anticipate its findings. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Zulfikar, the Cypriot ship involved, was stopped off Lisbon, earlier than it was at first thought possible to do as it sailed to Egypt, and that evidence will be gathered as soon as possible? Perhaps the lessons that can be learnt are——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have not the lessons now, but the question to the Minister, please.
    Mr. Martin: Perhaps the lessons once the inquiry has reported could be that technological devices can be improved. Should not the application of radar transponder devices and collision avoidance for smaller vessels also be covered by legislation?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole House shares in the sympathy for those involved in the tragic accident of the Wilhelmina. It is always tragic when fishing vessels go down because they are usually from small communities and the effect on such communities is substantial.
    I confirm that the inquiry is taking place and that the inspectors have already interviewed the master of the ship involved. The application of transponders will be brought to the attention of the inspector and he will probably address it when he makes his recommendation. I hope that we shall have an interim report in the next few days. When we shall be able to publish any of it remains to be seen.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister will recall the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares, which sailed from Carradale in my constituency, in which four of the crew were lost. Does he agree that in view of the special circumstances and evidence surrounding that tragedy, the Ministry of Defence should take responsibility for funding representation for the families at the forthcoming fatal accident inquiry? If the Ministry of Defence continues to refuse to do so, will the Department of Transport consider helping those families, who have suffered a great deal already?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The inquiry into the loss of the Antares is in progress. The points that the hon. Lady makes are first and foremost for the Ministry of Defence, but I shall bear in mind her comments and consider possible solutions.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that we need a complete overhaul of safety in all aspects of shipping? In respect of the incident about which we have just heard, does he agree that the failure of the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence to get together and resolve the matter is matched by the failure to approve and test the specification for the pinger devices which could do so much to improve safety when submarines are around? Was not that research interrupted because of the Gulf war and when will the Minister reach agreement with the Ministry of Defence so that our fishermen can fish in safety?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am fed up with the Opposition attempting to make party political points on what is a serious matter. If we are to start making party political points—I have tried to avoid doing so—we can look back and see that total losses were 37 in 1975, 35 in 1976, 37 in 1977, 38 in 1978 and 42 in 1979. Those were far greater losses than take place now. How dare the Opposition make cheap party political points?

    British Rail Pay
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the British Rail pay round, consideration has been given to a share participation scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I regret that a share participation scheme would

    757
    not be possible for British Rail while it remains a nationalised industry, but this will become an attractive option once British Rail is in the private sector.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if it were possible for British Rail to be denationalised, the employees could benefit from a share option scheme? Indeed, those parts of British Rail that have been denationalised already benefit from such schemes. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, for example, that at British Rail Engineering Ltd. in York, people with the same qualifications as employees of British Rail are offered a pay differential of between 23 and 36 per cent? Does not that show the way forward for British Rail, as opposed to the old-fashioned trade union policies adopted by the trade union barons?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, in 1990 BREL made a free allocation to employees of some of the 20 per cent. of shares bought by managers. Clearly, it is part of any privatisation to increase the opportunities available to employees. In previous privatisations employees have always come forward enthusiastically. That is one of the main advantages of introducing an industry to the new environment of the private sector.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. David—Mr. Dennis Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: That is my brother; he is younger than me.
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He slipped my memory for a moment!
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the employees of British Rail are not interested in share participation schemes? They are not interested in the offer that has been made by British Rail for their wages. They are not interested in what the Tories have to offer in respect of privatisation. They want the same kind of treatment as is being handed out in wages and conditions to the head of British Rail, who is picking up more than £200,000, and the other top directors who pocketed a 22·7 per cent increase last year. The Government should give the employees that treatment.
    Mr. Rifkind: The chairman of British Rail is a man of exceptional ability. If we are to expect British Rail to achieve the progress that has been made in many other industries, it is crucial to ensure that the person who is attracted to take over responsibility for the industry is paid a salary commensurate with such ability. The current pay negotiations are primarily a matter for British Rail and I hope that British Rail employees will take into account the fact that inflation is now falling rapidly. That is increasingly recognised throughout industry as well as in the public sector.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Geralld Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the route for the channel tunnel high-speed link.
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to receive British Rail's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link soon and will want to
    758
    discuss them with Sir Bob Reid. The Government will reach their conclusions on the project as speedily as possible, but it is too early to say when announcements may be made.
    Mr. Bowden: In his discussions with Sir Bob Reid, will my right hon. and learned Friend impress upon him the benefits which will come from a route that is aligned on a junction at Stratford, as that will offer not only direct through trains from Stratford through King's Cross to the west country, but the opportunity for through trains, freight and passenger, to the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am certainly aware of the advantages that it is often suggested the Stratford connection would bring. I certainly expect British Rail fully to have considered that option with the other options in its current survey.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Chris Smith.
    Mr. Tony Banks: No, Mr. Speaker. I tabled Question 7, which was linked with this one.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, it should be Mr. Anthony Banks first.
    Mr. Banks: Thank you, Sir. You obviously had a good weekend.
    It would be more helpful if the Secretary of State could give us a more precise date instead of "soon" for receiving British Rail's decisions. As he will know, all of London is waiting for this decision, not least his colleagues who have marginal constituencies and who have more than a passing interest in the line that will come through London. Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that there are strategic implications and that the whole future prosperity and economic welfare of the east end is bound up in his decision? Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will consider the decision in terms of its strategic significance and importance?
    Mr. Rifkind: Some time ago British Rail made it clear that it expected to make its recommendations to the Government this month. That may still be the case, but, obviously, that is a matter for British Rail. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points in the latter part of his question. Indeed, I would go further and say that British Rail's recommendations and the Government's decision on the high-speed link have potential national significance. It has implications not only for London and the south-east, but for the country as a whole. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only British Rail but the Government will address these matters with all the seriousness that they deserve.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hundreds of people and many institutions and firms are awaiting anxiously the announcement of the final route? When he considers the route will he bear in mind the fact that we have been waiting for many, many months? Will he confirm that when he has made his decision on the route it will be reported to the House in the first instance and will not be announced during the summer recess?
    Mr. Rifkind: I have indicated the seriousness with which I view these matters and, clearly, it is important not only to reach a decision but to do so as expeditiously as possible. I cannot anticipate when a conclusion will be

    759
    possible, but I certainly appreciate the desirability of the House's being given an opportunity fully to consider any conclusion that the Government may reach in due course.
    Mr. Rees: To follow the Secretary of State's comment about national implications—this is a matter for us in Leeds, Yorkshire and the north in general—is not one of the problems to do with signalling arrangements? At the weekend I was informed of a serious problem arising from cheap, shoddy, signalling arrangements in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State consider that carefully? It is no good talking about a high-speed link, if the existing basic signalling is not up to standard.
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that signalling is crucial to the smooth and acceptable operation of a railway service and I shall be happy to consider his points. I again emphasise the importance of the channel tunnel to areas north of London as well as to the south-east. Many would convincingly argue that the benefits of rail freight are all the more substantial the further north one goes, because of the longer journeys involved.
    Mr. Wolfson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that proper consideration needs to be given to the strategic implications of a high-speed link to the channel tunnel? Does he agree that good rail links, comparable with those of the TGV in France, are generators of economic growth and prosperity? Will he give due weight to that in his deliberations?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I agree that good rail links are highly desirable. The public debate on these matters is somewhat different in north-west France, where there is great enthusiasm for any such proposed rail connections, from that in the south-east of England, which has a quite different economy and much more congestion because of the burden of population and where such matters are conducted differently. However, the basic principle remains the same; rail links are crucial to the benefits of the channel tunnel on both sides of the channel.
    Mr. Chris Smith: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail will he make two essential points to him? First, it is important to ensure that there are fast and direct links from the channel tunnel to all parts of the country, not just to London. Secondly, in order to achieve that, it is not necessary to place an intolerable burden of extra congestion on King's Cross and its immediate area. Will he ensure that British Rail looks seriously and carefully at alternatives to King's Cross and does not dismiss them out of hand?
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect the survey being undertaken by British Rail to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. The implications for King's Cross and the alternative option of Stratford have been suggested by a number of quarters. British Rail's conclusions will carry additional weight if it can be seen to have considered all options fairly, objectively and responsibly.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Whereas my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent and south-east London have varying degrees of apprehension about the fast link, is not it at least as important to remember that the people of east London, north London and Essex, by and large,
    760
    support the Stratford option? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind in his consideration of the matter?
    Mr. Rifkind: The points made today by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members will emphasise to British Rail, if it needed reminding, that the House and the country expect that the study should look at all the options in a credible and objective fashion if British Rail's conclusions are to command the level of national support for which it hopes?
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is not a matter entirely for British Rail and that the Government have the overriding responsibility to see that there is a high-speed rail link from the tunnel not only to London but to areas beyond—the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland? When he makes his decision, on receiving the report from British Rail, will he consider making a statement before the summer recess, or will his judgment be based on electoral considerations?
    Mr. Rifkind: I must await British Rail's recommendations. On the routes north of London, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, thanks to Government approval and support for British Rail, the electrification of the east coast line will be completed in the very near future. That will make a dramatic difference to rail services on the east coast. It will enable British Rail to continue to say that, apart from the networks of France and Japan, its railway network, especially inter-city, is one of the fastest in the world. That requires on-going investment of the sort that I have outlined and it is right to emphasise that British Rail today has one of the fastest rail networks in the world, other than those in France and Japan.

    Transport Infrastructure (South Cumbria)
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport infrastructure in south Cumbria.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The current road programme for south Cumbria includes major improvements costing some £50 million. These proposals represent a very substantial investment and should greatly improve the trunk road network in south Cumbria.
    I understand that British Rail is currently looking closely at options for improving the rail service between Preston and Barrow.
    Mr. Franks: My hon. Friend will be aware that the south-west corner of Cumbria, particularly the town of Barrow, is probably one of the least accessible parts of the country. In view of the area's need to broaden its economic base following cuts in defence expenditure, will my hon. Friend give urgent priority to improving the local infrastructure, and particularly to an early commencement of a bypass at Dalton-in-Furness on the A590?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I understand my hon. Friend's point and what he said about the A590. Those matters are currently being considered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I hope that we shall soon be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks).
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that west Cumbria would be greatly assisted by rapid improvements

    761
    to the west coast line, which will require a certain amount of investment over the next five years? Will he undertake to discuss with the chairman of British Rail how the state can help to improve those services?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We are always willing to consider, with the chairman of British Rail, any proposals or investment programmes that British Rail wishes to pursue.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the most serious and urgent problems of Barrow and the surrounding area are to be dealt with, as they must be, Ministers must apply their minds and their time to making special efforts to ensure that road communications are improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said, including the Lindale to Newby bridge stretch of road and the railway line to Barrow, where connections with the main line are haphazard, to say the least?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. As I said in my original answer, British Rail is currently considering the matter.

    A69
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving the A69 road between Carlisle and Hexham.
    Mr. Chope: We are improving the A69. I had the pleasure of opening the A69 Brampton bypass on Thursday. The preferred route for a bypass of Haltwhistle was announced on 10 December last year and we are now proceeding towards publication of the statutory orders. Other recent improvements include the provision of climbing lanes, and more will be done as required.
    Mr. Martlew: Was not a political decision taken by the Minister last year to transfer responsibility from the Manchester regional office of the Department of Transport to Newcastle, and have not the consequences of that decision, which was taken without provision for extra manpower at Newcastle, been longer delays in projects to improve the A69, the Dalton bypass in the south of Cumbria and, most important to my constituents and to me, the proposed north-west bypass at Carlisle?
    Mr. Chope: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The transfer was made to put more resources into the major programme of road infrastructure and investment in Cumbria, amounting to £186 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) which of the schemes in that £186 million programme in Cumbria would be cut in the event of there being a Labour Government. I am writing to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East today to ask which of the 53 schemes that we are announcing for the coming financial year would be cut in the event of his being responsible for these matters.
    Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east has been treated fairly with regard to new road construction. If my hon. Friend considers the characteristics of and the accident record for the various types of vehicles which use the A69, especially heavy lorries and caravans, I am sure that he will agree that that stretch of road needs to be dualled urgently.
    Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is one reason why I spent a lot of time last Thursday considering the A69 to see what possible further improvements could be added to the programme, in addition to the £186 million already in it.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for compensation for rail users on lines such as the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line who suffer from poor quality of service.
    Mr. Freeman: Not at present, but the best way to improve quality of service is by investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure. That has happened for example on the Northampton route and will happen, in May, for the Chiltern route.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the light of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Conservative party central council in Southport, can my hon. Friend the Minister say how the possibility of a citizens' charter would benefit commuters on the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line and other lines in the British Rail network?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech is relevant to British Rail in that it requires quality targets to be set and communicated to customers, and for there to be some form of redress where appropriate. It is certainly appropriate to British Rail, particularly where there are monopolies—one thinks, for instance, of Network SouthEast. British Rail is already moving towards setting fare increases directly related to the achievement of quality on individual lines—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughs, but he will know that there is a distinction between the service from Southend to Liverpool Street—where a real fare increase followed an improvement in the quality of service—and the service from Southend and Fenchurch Street, where there has been no real fare increase because there has been no improvement.
    Ms. Abbott: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as well as the plight of Chelmsford to Liverpool Street commuters, he should consider the plight of commuters in London generally? It has been revealed today that London is the most expensive commuter city in Europe—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was my fault.
    Ms. Abbott: We pay more in general and more for single journeys. Why should London commuters continue to pay astronomical fares for an increasingly shabby and sub-standard service?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady should ask the Labour party spokesmen on the subject. I suspect that they would not agree with her, and neither would I.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Come on.
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will restrain himself, I will answer the question.
    I am sure that neither the Opposition spokesmen nor the Government would agree that it would be a sensible course of action now to cut fares on Network SouthEast. Investment would be a much better use of resources. Would the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) cut fares and, therefore, investment?

    Tyne Valley Rail Service
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the extent of achievement of the performance targets set by his Department for the operation of the Tyne Valley rail service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McLoughlin: British Rail recognises that the quality of service on some lines in the north-east is lower than the customer is entitled to expect and it is taking steps to improve its performance.
    Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give the lie to those mischief makers in my constituency who say that the Tyne Valley line is to be closed? Will he confirm, first, that British Rail has no plans to close the line and, secondly, that when British Rail is privatised, as I hope that it soon will be, the line will continue to receive a large subsidy from the Government?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can certainly confirm that there are no plans to close the Tyne Valley services.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear on a number of occasions that the fact that we are seeking to privatise British Rail does not mean that we would not continue to offer subsidies to provincial rail services.
    Mr. Flynn rose——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not from the relevant part of the world.
    Mr. Flynn: My question is connected.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may continue.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that part of the improvement of service on the Tyne Valley line involves the improvement of safety? Is he not alarmed at the 700 accidents that have occured, some on the Tyne Valley line where passengers have fallen from trains? There was one such accident in my constituency a fortnight ago, when a man fell from a moving train into the path of another train, and 100 passengers have been killed in such accidents. Should not the Minister press British Rail for a fresh, independent investigation into such accidents?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Any accident of that sort is serious and each one is individually dealt with by the railway inspectorate. There is no common consistency in the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Railway Policy
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek an early meeting with his continental counterparts to discuss railway policy.
    Mr. Rifkind: I regularly see my community counter-parts at meetings of the European council of transport Ministers. Railway policy was a major item on the agenda of our last meeting in Brussels on 27 March.
    Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that while we discuss the privatisation of our railways, Community countries—with the possible exception of one small country—carry on improving their already excellent rail systems? Has he also noticed that in our party the main proponents of railway privatisation tend to be those who delivered the poll tax to a grateful nation? Will he please ensure that we do not have a poll tax on wheels; and will he not muck about with the rail system in such a way that he has to come to the House and tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) that he cannot demand privatisation and a continuing level of subsidy at the same time? There is no sense in continuing heavily to subsidise the system if one's purpose is to privatise it. We need a transport policy that seeks deliberately to transfer traffic from road to rail.
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that my hon. Friend is out of touch with the mainstream of European opinion on this matter. Not only are the Dutch Government considering the privatisation of their railways, but the European Commission has expressly called for the introduction of competition to the railways. Therefore, on this—though on no other matter I disagree with my hon. Friend and prefer the views of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who was quoted in the South London Press on 12 April as saying that a privatised rail network may provide a "higher standard service".
    Ms. Ruddock: The Secretary of State misquotes me, of course, as I made it very clear that even if privatisation could provide a higher standard of service it would also undoubtedly provide much higher fares. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets his continental counterparts, will he take advice from them on fares? He cites the Dutch Government, who intend to double the number of people travelling on public transport in the next 20 years. Surely in this capital city we should be doing the same. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to get people off the tube and off the railway into their private cars, thereby causing further congestion? Has he seen and does he agree with the editorial in the Evening Standard today which says that when people begin to lose confidence in their Government's ability to run a railway they will question their ability to run anything else?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady has some explaining to do because the South London Press directly quotes her observations on this matter, to the effect that a privatised railway network may provide a higher standard of service. I note that the hon. Lady has not withdrawn that observation.
    The hon. Lady should realise that if she wishes, as I wish, to encourage more people to use the railway service, it is manifestly clear that the best way to do that is to ensure that the railways face the same competition as other transport services. Experience with the airlines, buses and other forms of transport has invariably shown that the travelling public get a better quality of service when choice is available. That is why the Dutch and Japanese Governments and the European Commission are pointing

    765
    in that direction. On past form, we shall have to wait only a few years before the Labour party comes along in the same direction.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown prosecution service.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Last year the Crown prosecution service completed proceedings relating to nearly 1·6 million defendants in the magistrates court and more than 140,000 defendants in the Crown court.
    Mr. Marshall: What success is the Crown prosecution service having in recruiting additional staff?
    The Solicitor-General: Over the past year recruiting has been very successful. The rate of recruitment has doubled, with a net gain of 210 lawyers in post, which means that vacancies have fallen from 23 to 15 per cent. That has been heartening to the service, and efforts are continuing, especially in areas still under stress.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Solicitor-General believe that the process has speeded up as a result? Is this having any impact on the numbers of people held on remand?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that it is having a good effect on the efficiency of the service, on the ability of the service to carry out its review and on the ability of lawyers in post to do more of the work in court as—well as on their general reviewing work—and that is to the general benefit. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a statistical answer on speed, but if he writes to me I can send him the information.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Solicitor-General will recall that the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which set up the Crown prosecution service, received all-party support. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I raised questions about the relationships between the heads of the services, chief constables, salary levels and the professional status of the service's employees. Obviously these were matters that would be judged over time. I remember that we asked for a review after five years and that the Attorney-General rejected our request. We now have a report from the Public Accounts Committee, which draws attention to the fact that two and a half years after its inception the objectives of the service have not yet been met and that it is costing twice as much as the previous arrangements. Those are matters for which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are directly responsible, so it seems fair to ask the Solicitor-General what he intends to do about them.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should remember the constructive and frequently praising remarks of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it carried out its review nearly a year ago. The salaries, the career structure and the training scheme that have been brought into place in the past year have all had an excellent effect on morale within the service and on the recruitment that I have described to the House.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out his duties in relation to the conduct and aftermath of the Gulf war and observance of human rights and international law.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): As the Government's principal legal adviser, I give advice to Ministers on any matter involving domestic or international legal issues.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Attorney-General the question of which I gave his office notice this morning? What has been the Government's legal and other response to the request made by Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan on behalf of the United Nations refugees committee that sanctions should be lifted? Is not it desperately urgent, in view of the sweltering summer and the likely outbreak of hepatitis, cholera and typhoid? If we are to help the Shias and Kurds, do not we sometimes have to talk to Baghdad?
    The Attorney-General: It is true that the hon. Gentleman, in his invariably courteous way, gave me notice of his question earlier today. I have to say that the matter is one of policy for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the provisions of Security Council resolution 687, which was adopted on 3 April, and especially paragraph 20, which lifts sanctions imposed by resolution 661 in respect of foodstuffs, subject only to notification to the sanctions committee.
    Mr. Winnick: Will any steps be taken with the relevant international bodies to ensure that those responsible for the crimes committed in Kuwait during the terror of Iraqi occupation and the crimes further committed against the Kurds will be tried by an international tribunal? As Nazi war criminals were tried in 1945–46 for crimes against humanity, why should Saddam Hussein be exempted from the same rules? There is undoubtedly a strong case that he should be tried as well.
    The Attorney-General: These matters depend upon a clear understanding of all the facts when they become available. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed—I think that it was last week—to work towards bringing criminals, and Mr. Saddam Hussein in particular, to justice. It is necessary, first, to have a clear understanding of the facts. The hon. Gentleman will also recall, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, that we do not have Saddam in our power.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Ms. Short: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director to discuss departmental matters, and I last did so on 18 April, but I do not disclose the particular matters discussed.
    Mr. McFall: Will the Attorney-General confirm that a number of police officers who must have lied and

    767
    fabricated evidence are still on duty? Are there any plans to suspend them, or may we expect business as usual in the West Midlands police force?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Devon and Cornwall police force is carrying out investigations of a criminal nature into certain police officers who were named in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. More than that it is not proper for me to say at present.
    Ms. Short: The Attorney-General will recall that the trial judge in the case said that if what the defendants were saying was true it would amount to the biggest conspiracy in the annals of criminal history. Can he assure us that he is dealing with the matter that seriously and that he will secure the prosecutions of those who organised it rather than a couple of low-level fall guys?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Lady would expect the Director of Public Prosecutions to do more than apply the code for Crown prosecutors in this instance exactly as it is applied in other instances—that is, to look to see whether, at the conclusion of the police investigation, which is far advanced, there is enough evidence to give rise to the realistic prospect of a conviction and the public interest requires a prosecution. That is the test, and he will apply it.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please advise the House whether the Birmingham Six were released because they could not possibly have carried out the pub bombings, because there was reasonable doubt, or because the evidence on which they were prosecuted was unsafe? That is a matter of public interest.
    The Attorney-General: As the Court of Appeal made clear in the concluding words of its judgment, it held that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory on each of two specific grounds. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The consequence is that each of the Birmingham Six is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anybody else in the country.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the basic problem is that the IRA, like the Disloyalists, go around killing people when the answer in Northern Ireland is for people to settle their differences by discussion and disagreement rather than by murder?
    The Attorney-General: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as the whole House must agree, that that is a consummation devoutly to be wished. As soon as military and paramilitary organisations adopt that rule, we shall all be greatly satisfied and many innocent people will be relieved of the fear of death, let alone of wrongful conviction, from which they have suffered for so many years now.

    Appeals
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what is the present average delay between (a) date of conviction, (b) granting of leave to appeal and (c) determination of the appeal in criminal cases in England and Wales; and if he has any plans to speed up the appeal process.
    The Solicitor-General: Based on a sample of cases heard by the Court of Appeal in March this year, the average time between the lodging of a notice of appeal and decision by the single judge was just over 12 weeks, and from the grant of leave to appeal to final decision by the full court was just over 20 weeks.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I am sure that he realises that one of the greatest causes of complaint by those who are ultimately acquitted is the length of time they are held while the various steps in the process allowing them to appeal are taken. Is there anything that he and his colleagues can do to try to make sure that if an appeal is put in it goes to the front of the queue and that the period for the intervening stages before it can be reduced, possibly by half?
    The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor keeps the state of business in the court under constant review and the court itself tries to put cases where the sentences are shorter, and therefore there is a risk of a person serving the sentence before an appeal against conviction can be heard, to the front of the queue and so to order its affairs that cases do not result in injustice.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Development Assistance
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with her German opposite number on development assistance.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I met the German Minister for Co-operation, Herr Spranger, at the Anglo-German summit on 11 March. We reached agreement on a wide range of current development issues. I hope to see him early in May. In the meantime, we are in touch by telephone.
    Mr. Townsend: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Germany's criteria for the provision of such assistance are very similar to our own? In her recent discussions with her German opposite number, did she raise the matter of how Germany could best help to solve the vast problem of Kurdish relief, bearing in mind that that country will not be sending any military personnel into the region?
    Mrs. Chalker: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. Obviously, the answer to his second will be embodied in my statement. At this stage, I would say simply that while the Germans may not have a presence in the region, they are contributing to the relief of suffering there.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the need for more international effort to provide appropriate assistance to Kurdish refugees, can the Minister explain to her German counterpart and, indeed, to this House what on earth possessed her to hand out chocolates to starving Kurdish children? Does not such a patronising gesture indicate a degree of insensitivity almost akin to Marie-Antoinette's infamous statement, "Let them eat cake."?
    Mrs. Chalker: In a few moments, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we shall come to a statement on this issue. In the meantime, let me say to the hon. Gentleman simply

    769
    that a large number of things were donated for me to take to the children. It would have been wrong to keep those things. What ought I to have done? Should I have prevented those children from having a little joy? How can the hon. Gentleman be so mean?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her reply to the last supplementary question. Can she tell me what progress is being made to persuade Germany and other developed countries to implement the Jamaica conditions, which were put forward by the Prime Minister with a view to reducing the indebtedness of developing countries?
    Mrs. Chalker: At the Commonwealth Finance Minister's meeting last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward what are now known not as the Jamaica conditions but as the Trinidad conditions. Last week I discussed these with the IMF and the World bank. We are hopeful that debt relief provisions—that is to say, easier terms for heavily indebted countries—will be agreed later this summer. We are working with our partners on the issue, and the Germans are particularly supportive of what we are doing.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Minister discuss with her German counterpart the enormous famine facing Africa, with the threat of starvation hanging over 29 million people? What action have the Government decided to take?
    Mrs. Chalker: I did indeed speak with my German counterpart about the tragic situation to which the hon. Lady has referred. As she has rightly said, up to 29 million people are affected. I asked the Germans to provide more assistance and to help me to make sure that European Community aid was more speedily delivered to the region, particularly the Horn of Africa. They have agreed to do so, and in my next talks with them I hope to hear more evidence of the movement that has taken place over the past six weeks. I know that the Germans are committed to taking action, their earlier problems having gone away.

    South Africa
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to South Africa consequent upon the dismantling of apartheid.
    Mrs. Chalker: Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans has grown rapidly in recent years to around £8 million in 1990–91. On present plans, it will rise steadily to over £10 million in 1992–93. We shall continue to play a constructive role in the development of a post-apartheid South Africa.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the system of apartheid blighted the educational and entrepreneurial opportunities of the blacks. Will British aid be directed to those two areas?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed it will. In fact, this morning I met President de Klerk, and one of the matters that we discussed was how to secure the return of entrepreneurial growth that will stimulate the creation of jobs. In our programme, there is major emphasis on education and community development. By helping black South Africans to secure better education, we fit them for the jobs that we
    770
    hope will come through the growth that will be achieved once South Africa is fully accepted back into the international financial community.
    Mr. Hain: Does not the Minister accept that it is highly premature to talk of increasing aid while township violence increases, while black people in South Africa still do not have the vote, and while political prisoners still fill the prisons? Will she remind President de Klerk that until there is an end to the township violence, which in the past five years has claimed more victims than the number of South African soldiers killed in the second world war, he should not be wining and dining in the capital of the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Chalker: As a matter of fact, 400 political prisoners have been released since February 1990, and more will be released in the coming weeks. The President of South Africa has plans to deal with township violence—but not by putting more people in custody. The South African Government want to reduce violence by action within the communities and a great deal of work is being undertaken to that end. There is a firm determination among members of that Government to proceed with finalising legislation to get rid of apartheid. When they have done that, I am sure that South Africa will gradually become a better place.

    European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the inauguration of the European bank for reconstruction and development.
    Mrs. Chalker: The European bank for reconstruction and development was formally inaugurated in London on 15 April by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand. That was an historic occasion, which symbolised the coming together of east and west, and gave the new bank the necessary authority to start operations to support economic reform in central and eastern Europe.
    Mr. Carrington: The establishment of that bank in London is greatly welcomed, as it consolidates London's position as the financial centre of Europe. The European bank for reconstruction and development has a primary role to play in consolidating the new-found freedoms of east European countries. What support are the British Government giving to it?
    Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom's subscription to the capital base is £36·5 million over five years. The total subscribed capital is 10 billion ecu.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware of the enormous cost of dealing with just one problem in eastern Europe—that of cleaning up pollution? Does she agree that the sums mentioned are totally inadequate? As Britain is part of the same continent, what will the British Government do to help?
    Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's observations, because central and eastern Europe's pollution problems are horrendous. We are devoting our know-how funds in eastern Europe to providing that know-how to which the Government in each country give priority. I am certain that they will include some

    771
    environmental projects. Those Governments will be seeking environmental projects such as those that might be funded by the bank, to solve some of their pollution problems. We must ensure that those problems do not get worse, and that the clean-up starts as soon as possible.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ensure that the payment of aid funds by Her Majesty's Government to third world countries takes full account of the recipient's record on human rights.
    Mrs. Chalker: Human rights is one of a number of important factors that we take fully into account in deciding aid allocations.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the exception of some humanitarian aid to refugees on the Thai-Burmese border, there will be no resumption of any aid to the Government of Burma until they respect the elections that were held last May in which the Opposition won 85 per cent. of the vote, release the Opposition's de facto leader who is still under house arrest, and un-ban the democratic parties that they have tried to suppress?
    Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Iraqi Refugees
3.33 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement following my visit to Turkey and Iran to assess the needs of Iraqi refugees and what more Britain intends to do further to relieve their tragic suffering.
Last Wednesday I reported to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the first days of immediate relief that we have provided to Iraqi refugees in both countries. On Thursday I left for Turkey and Iran with Overseas Development Administration and diplomatic wing officials, and representatives of the British Red Cross, Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, all experts in the provision of humanitarian relief.
Our objective was to assess the current situation of refugees in the Turkey-Iraq and Iran-Iraq border areas, to stimulate improved communication and co-ordination of all aid donors on the ground and to plan our further relief to the refugees with the Governments and aid agencies of all involved. The generosity of Her Majesty in allowing us the use of an aircraft and crew of the Queen's Flight, and the helpful attitude of both the Turkish and Iranian Governments, and the Iranian air force, enabled my team and me to see a number of camps and have detailed discussions with Ministers, officials and aid personnel in both countries. I was also able to meet senior American and German military personnel to gain a clearer picture of both their immediate and future aid plans.
The plight of the Iraqi refugees is truly harrowing. Assistance is further advanced for those on the Turkish border than for those in Iran. The Turkish system has developed considerably during the last week, but needs continuing supplies. I will return to Turkey's work for the refugees in a moment, but first I deal with Iran. The situation is changing hour by hour. For those in Iran, the rate of delivery of supplies from all sources must be at least doubled, and donors must co-ordinate through the Iranian Red Crescent and with the Government of Iran as well as with the United Nations and international aid agencies.
There are now more than 1·2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, with many thousands more over the border seeking entry through the three crossing points. The Iranian authorities told me that they are allowing several thousand in a day as they establish more camps and places in them, and provided that the refugees will give up their arms at the border. Around 1 million people, mainly Kurds but also Turkomans, Assyrians and Arabs, have come to the northern border provinces of west Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran, another 200,000 plus have moved on to east Azerbaijan and there are more than 50,000 Shi'ites in Khuzestan in southern Iran across the border from Basra.
Within the northern provinces, the response of the Iranian Red Crescent organisation and their provincial governors is growing daily with help from donors through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Iranian military. Britain was one of the first to supply directly to Orumieh in west Azerbaijan, 160 tonnes so far having been delivered, plus 3 million water purifying tablets. The Iranian Red Crescent works through the provincial governors to secure supplies, distribute them and maintain order in the camps; 55 camps have been established in Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran. The Iranian Red Crescent and
774
local officials discussed their difficulties openly and welcomed our suggestions to help to improve the organisation of supplies and health care.
Our visit to two of the 22 camps near Orumieh, in the foothills of the mountains north of Piranshahr, confirmed that existing facilities are overwhelmed by numbers entering. The queues to cross the border at Tamarcheen are still 3 to 4 km long and there are few or no facilities along the road. On the road and in many camps, conditions of shelter, health, food and water are horrendous and urgently need improvement.
The health of women and children is particularly at risk because of unclean water, no sanitation, limited health care and irregular food distribution. In the mosque at one camp, the first point of arrival, whole families lie huddled together in row upon row with no facilities at all. They move on into tents, where they have little more space, but where ground dampness makes the problem of extreme cold at night much worse. The Iranian authorities are setting up new camps continuously, but need more assistance to do so. The International Committee of the Red Cross is helping but the Iranian Red Crescent needs our help in west Azerbaijan.
After discussions with Iranian Government officials, the Iranian Red Crescent, our own British Red Cross, The Tehran representative of Save the Children Fund and local officials in Orumieh, I have set up under British Red Cross supervision the supply of tents, blankets and ground sheets through Orumieh to the west Azerbaijan camps. This supply operation starts tomorrow morning and will access the area by air either to Yusekova in Turkey or to Orumieh, with onward ground transport to the Iranian camps.
To achieve this, we shall double the number of relief flights to Iran to four flights a week. The ground transport will be organised by between the Red Cross and the Iranian Red Crescent with a resident British Red Cross official working with the British embassy in Tehran to ensure co-ordination of supplies and personnel in this massive effort. We were advised by the Iranian Red Crescent that it needs many more trucks, and this is being examined urgently. We shall purchase food locally wherever possible, as we are already doing in Turkey through the local Red Crescent.
To meet the health needs, I have agreed with the British Red Cross to co-ordinate with Save the Children Fund to set up camp health centres in west Azerbaijan, where we know there is a very great need. We will start immediately with one centre for up to 150,000 refugees with satellite units. This will be managed by Save the Children Fund and will run initially for a period of three months. I expect to extend this and to establish further centres through the British Red Cross.
As a result of our visit, I can also announce today an initial contribution of £2 million from the £20 million pledged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the ICRC's excellent programme to help refugees in Iran. In addition to the £12 million we have already committed to the European Community for its assistance to non-governmental organisations, and the EC's own contributions to the ICRC and UN appeals. I will be considering further contributions to the UN appeals. We need to know the UN agencies' plans in order to judge how best we can help. I hope this will be soon. There will be further help to British NGOs as plans firm up and are

775
agreed. I shall be seeing the United Nations secretary-general tomorrow morning, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will be meeting Prince Sadruddin Khan in Geneva tomorrow.
In Turkey we are continuing the airlift of relief supplies from this country and the airdrops to the refugees by RAF Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopters. Meanwhile, urgent action is being taken to establish protected refugee camps in northern Iraq near Zakhu and to persuade the refugees to come down from the mountains as quickly as possible. The United Nations involvement in taking over responsibility for these camps is crucial, as is our overall objective of getting the refugees to return to their homes in peace and security. As I said earlier, the plan is unfolding hour by hour. There are regular meetings with British Red Cross and other agencies, with colleagues in Government and links with our European partners, the United States military and the international agencies. I am most grateful to Michael Whitlam of the British Red Cross, and to all the agencies and to our troops working in Turkey, for the excellent work they are doing.
The message I want to leave with the House this afternoon is that, following our visit, we are stepping up our relief operations to respond to the urgent needs in Iran through our own NGOs and the international agencies. We shall continue our operations on the Turkish border as we establish the protected refugee centres under Operation Haven inside Iraq.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to see the Minister back in the House after what I know was an arduous, difficult and distressing journey. She has now seen for herself the appalling conditions in which the Kurdish refugees are living. I welcome the additional assistance that she has announced today. I understand—perhaps she will confirm this—that on the Piranshahr crossing, where more than 1 million people have crossed the border from Iraq to Iran, the situation is even worse than it was when I saw it nine days ago. Is the Minister aware that some of those people have been on top of the same mountain for three weeks? Can she give the House the numbers of refugees on each side of the borders with Turkey and Iran?
The Minister referred to immediate relief. Can she tell us how much aid has gone directly from the United Kingdom to the Kurdish refugees separately in Turkey and in Iraq? Can she tell us on what days and in what tonnage it was received by the Kurds? If she cannot answer that question immediately—I shall understand if she cannot—I should be glad if she would write to me. Will she tell us what contribution the European Community has made to both countries?
Does the Minister agree that, after weeks of miscalculation and poor organisation, perhaps as many as two million people who have fled their homes are dying on the bitter cold mountain slopes of Iraqi Kurdistan, still desperate to get to the borders and having to fight one another for scraps of food?
The Minister has confirmed that the Iranians have been totally overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of refugees. Will she join me in warmly congratulating them on the tremendous efforts that they have made to deal sympathetically and humanely with the human tragedy confronting them?
776
I welcome the call to double deliveries to Iran. Has not Iran been forced temporarily to slow down the stream of refugees attempting to cross the border because it simply cannot handle any more? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with the treatment of the refugees on the Turkish border? Will she confirm that the safe havens will hold only about 360,000 refugees and will not be able to take refugees from the Iranian borders?
Does the Minister recall that on 28 March, during an Adjournment debate on Iraqi Kurdistan, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called for assistance to the Kurds and I also called for humanitarian aid? Why did the Minister say on a BBC programme two weeks ago that I must have been clairvoyant to have anticipated that need? It did not take clairvoyance to realise what was happening: we all knew. Perhaps today the Minister would like to withdraw her comment.
Will the Minister admit that the Overseas Development Administration is not structured to deal quickly and effectively with a crisis of this type; or is it simply the case that, once again, the Foreign Office has been following the United States approach, based on its cool relationship with Iran over the hostages? Does she agree that, although we must make every effort to secure the quick release of the hostages, emergency humanitarian aid for the Kurdish refugees must not be affected by any other consideration?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether it is true that the Treasury has refused the ODA extra money to pay for the emergency effort? Surely the existing aid budget cannot possibly afford the £.1·5 million a week for Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopter flights without taking money from famine relief in Africa and from vital long-term development programmes throughout the third world. Does she also agree that in this country we need the equivalent of Medecins Sans Frontieres, the French medical relief agency, which was on the border of Iraq and working within days?
I make an urgent plea to the Minister. Will she urge the British Government and the United Nations to back any viable suggestions which will enable the Kurdish people to return to their own homes and country as soon as possible to live in peace and security in Iraq?
Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) anticipated at one stage during her long question, I shall have to write to her with some of the details. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) complains about the length of my statement. Had I not given the facts and figures, the questions would have been even longer.
The queues at Piranshahr appear to be shorter than they were when the hon. Lady was there nine days ago, but that does not mean that there are not thousands and thousands of refugees in the foothills and not on the road. I do not necessarily believe that, because the queues on the road are that much shorter, the number trying to cross the border is substantially smaller.
Immediate relief is and has been going to Iran for the Kurdish people for more than three weeks, but it is not only for Kurdish people, as I made clear in my statement. I cannot tell the hon. Lady how much has been received by the Kurdish people, because in the camps that we visited we found a mixture of groups with, as I said, Arabs, Assyrians, and Turkomans as well. They were all refugees—and they were all Iraqis. The hon. Lady asked me to

777
detail what had gone to Kurdish refugees; I cannot do that. The relief sent out more than two weeks ago by the Overseas Development Administration to Iran was received and distributed within a week, I was told, and the supplies that went out last week were being distributed as we were there on Saturday.
The European Community contributions are being made to both countries, but we have not been given details of that so far. We have despatched more than 440 tonnes of goods to Turkey and more than 160 tonnes of goods to Iran. We know that in Turkey and in northern Iraq more than 200 tonnes of our supplies have been dropped by the C130s. Aircraft. with further supplies are flying daily to the Turkish-Iraqi border, and nine helicopters have joined the airlift there.
On Iran, I have announced the further help of field health centres and more supplies flights. However, the logistics of distribution need to be worked out carefully with the Iranian Red Crescent. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait a little longer for those details. The important point is to get on with getting the supplies there and to ensure that the routes to the refugees are getting supplies rather than to keep asking for endless reports, which only holds up the supply to the refugees.
It is true that, for sound reasons of health care and of anxiety about the violence in the camps, there has been a slowing of the stream of Iraqi refugees across the border into Iran. The treatment that we saw in the early days on the Turkish border has improved, and people are now working better together than they were two weeks ago.
The safe havens will be able to accommodate more than 360,000 people provided that they succeed and that the Iraqi troops continue to leave the safe havens in peace so that people can gradually begin the return. It is intended not that people should remain in the safe havens, but that they should pass through them and go back to their own towns down routes supervised by the United Nations.
I am well aware that many people believed that there would be a substantial refugee flood across the borders, but even the Governments of Iran and of Turkey never envisaged, even on 28 March, the size of that flow of refugees.
The hon. Lady asked me whether my Department was structured to deal with such crises. We have never before had to deal with 29 million people at risk of starvation in Africa and at the same time a refugee crisis in Iran and in Turkey. We have increased the staff in the relevant departments, and we will send people to help to cope with the immediate needs both in Tehran and in Ankara. My own head of population is the co-ordinator to the whole relief project in Turkey and in Iran, and will be able to travel freely between the two countries to do what is necessary to ensure that the co-ordination is as good as it can be.
We cannot achieve any of that as a single donor or even as European community donors. I am concerned about the lack of speed of the United Nations in dealing with the problems. That is why, 10 days ago, I spoke to the Secretary-General, and I will be with him tomorrow morning to take the matter further. As I said, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will talk with Prince Sadruddin Khan. We believe that we will be able to do more as the days unfold.
However, what I have announced today is a response to the most urgent need—the need for health care and for
778
continuing supplies. I am grateful both to the Turkish Government and to the Iranian Government for the welcome that they gave our offer and for their helpfulness in trying to make it happen on the ground, where it matters to the refugees.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware of the importance of the statement, but today is a private Members' day. I ask hon. Members to put single questions and not to go on to give us the benefit of their views.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her impressive and constructive initiative to relieve the appalling misery of the Kurds, following upon the dynamic leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in setting up the safe havens. Does she agree that the condition of the Shi'ites in the south is a cause for massive concern about their safety? Will she make it clear to Saddam Hussein that military force will be used to stop him further oppressing the Shi'ites in the south and that such use will be entirely consistent with the United Nations resolution?
Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the memorandum of understanding signed by the Government of Iraq with the United Nations will mean that the refugees—the Shi'ites in the south and many others in the north—will have their safety protected. If it is insufficient, further action will be taken, as I told my hon. and learned Friend in the Select Committee evidence session last week. The International Committees of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies are working in the south. We believe that the French will be doing more in that area. Although we imagine that at present there are only 50,000 Shi'ite refugees, they certainly need protection and help, as do all the other Iraqi refugees.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the right hon. Lady recall that last week she made a point about the release of the western hostages? Is it not strange that this afternoon she has made no reference to that matter? Is she aware that, until pressure can be brought on Israel to release the hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held in the appalling conditions of the prison camp at Khiam, and until Sheik Obeid is released, after his criminal abduction by Israeli forces, there can be no progress on the question of the release of western hostages? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Have some sense about why not. What pressure can be brought on Israel to make her conform to standards of international conduct in such matters?
Mrs. Chalker: On the fifth anniversary of the taking of John McCarthy as a hostage, I was asked what I could do. I said that I would do my best. I told Dr. Velayati that the purpose of my visit was to assess what further help we could give in providing humanitarian relief to Iraqi refugees in Iran. My statement this afternoon has been on the subject of the Iraqi refugees. Separately from discussing Iraqi refugee help, I asked the Government of Iran on humanitarian grounds to use their influence to secure the release of the hostages. I explained that, if they were released, it would be possible to transform our bilateral relationship.
Dr. Velayati said that the taking and holding of hostages was against the policy of the Iranian

779
Government, and that they had made efforts to secure the release of the hostages and would continue to do so. I told Dr. Velayati that we, too, were opposed to the taking and holding of hostages by anyone. I said that we had made that clear to the Israelis many times and that we would continue to do so. We had a good discussion on the subject.
Mr. Michael Jopling: I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have responded to the tragedy. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the problem of polluted water. What is the international relief community doing to ensure that types of food which could make a tragic situation infinitely worse are not sent to these areas? I am thinking in particular of the difficulty that could arise with dried milk powder. If one adds polluted water to it, one provides a culture which simply allows the disease organisms to multiply. That could make the tragedy infinitely worse and more awful.
Mrs. Chalker: I must tell my right hon. Friend that we have indeed been discussing with the agencies how to get a supply of water by water piping. We shall be supporting a project, which Oxfam is carrying out with the help of Army engineers, to bring water to camps which have no supply. Some camps, particularly in west Azerbaijan, have water supplies, but the water is not pure. That is why 3 million water purification tablets went in the hold of our plane last week. We are also providing advice to the camps about water testing, so that it is known which camps must use which purification methods. That will be done through the field health centres. I appreciate the importance of milk powder being mixed with pure water for baby milk, and that message will also be delivered clearly and consistently.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the treatment of refugees by Turkish soldiers on the Turkish side of the border, where there have been killings? Given the Turks' inhumane treatment of the Kurds, what representations did she make on their behalf?
Mrs. Chalker: I certainly made it clear to those in the Turkish Government and others to whom I spoke that inhumane treatment of refugees of any race achieves nothing. In the early days, there was action which should never have taken place. I believe that the position has improved; I was certainly told that it had by those running the camps. Given the sheer fear and everything else that was wrong in the earliest days when people were teeming over the mountains, it is hardly surprising that things went wrong. What is important is that the Turkish Government are trying to put matters right and, I believe, are succeeding.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good standing of the United Nations as an effective force is once again on the line? Will she confirm that not only the British Government but this House and the British people look to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take the swiftest possible action both to ensure that aid continues under its agency and to secure the future of the safe haven plan in Iraq?
Mrs. Chalker: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend, as I had some difficulty in getting certain people in the United Nations to understand the urgency. I exclude from that comment some local people in places such as Tehran and Ankara, who are sincerely trying to help. Many people who for various reasons cannot do relief work in other countries, such as the Sudan, are coming into the area and switching their personal efforts to work in Turkey and Iran. The operation will not succeed until the United Nations organises the whole matter centrally and, indeed, gives a swift reply, which sadly to date we have not had.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the demand that Iraqi troops withdraw from the safe havens and of reports that Saddam Hussein is simply replacing military personnel with police personnel in some refugee areas, can the Minister assure us that that will not stop emergency relief getting through to the people who require it?
Mrs. Chalker: Yes.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people such as Terry Waite and John McCarthy are small in number but great in the injustice from which they have suffered for some five years? The fact that the Iranian Government now ask us for aid, having turned it down on other occasions when it suited them, should give us a proper opportunity to say that humanity may suffer, but we are not prepared to let those people suffer such grave injustices and may not help unless the Iranian Government are willing to help free those people who have suffered unnecessarily and unjustly. The Kurds are suffering in great numbers, but all justice involves single people, and single people who have done no harm are suffering a cruel, unjust fate thanks to the Iranians.
Mrs. Chalker: I repeat that the help provided for Iraqi refugees has no bearing on the hostage situation. Some newspapers have linked the two issues. We are giving aid to the Iraqi refugees for humanitarian reasons. Many Iranian families are sharing their homes, their goods, their possessions, their food and their shelter with Iraqi refugees. The Iranian Government have not asked for help for themselves; they have asked that those people who have come to their country for shelter should be assisted. That is what the international community is doing and must continue to do.
Ms. Clare Short: The emergency aid is very important, but the real answer, as the Minister said, is for people to be able to go back to their homes. Will she tell us more about the Government's thinking? Safe havens, yes, but we do not know what the answer is for Shi'ites in the south. How will the refugees be protected when they go home? Will UN military forces be deployed? I see no other option. Is that the Government's thinking?
Mrs. Chalker: It is fair to say that the eventual solution, especially in the Shi'ite south, has yet to be worked out. The UN forces are coming up from Baghdad and hope to establish corridors down which the Iraqi refugees may pass on their way back to their homes. That is being worked out, and we do not yet have the answers from the United Nations.

781
In the meantime, it is critical to get the Iraqi refugees down from the mountains, or they will freeze to death. It is extremely difficult to distribute the relief supplies. I was in the back of an RAF helicopter and was roped in to push out supplies. We did not use the flight simply to observe; we delivered on every flight we made. It is dangerous work, but it must be done, and we will do it. However, it is only a temporary solution and we must get people down from the mountains. Safe havens will achieve that in the first instance, but further developments must follow, and we are working hard on those.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I ask my right hon. Friend what many people want to know? Why is the United Nations dragging its heels over accepting responsibility for the protection of the Kurdish refugee camps? Has not a great opportunity been lost? Whatever happened to the new world order? Will my right hon. Friend use less than diplomatic language to bring home this point to the Secretary-General tomorrow?
Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that, when necessary, I can use extremely strong language. I shall do so to get the results that we all want. The United Nations should be fully prepared to take on its humanitarian responsibilities. Local United Nations representatives are trying hard. It is at the centre and the top that we must get things sorted out.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have now had four statements on this issue in the past eight days. Is it not apparent that it is a lot easier to kill people in war than it is to feed them by the humanitarian means now being used? The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) spoke about the new world order. We were promised that, when the clean, clinical war was ended, there would be a new world order, but all we can see is a winding trail of human misery on the mountains of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
Those of us who opposed the bombing of the Kurds are now more than ever justified in pointing out that before people, in the coalition or otherwise, talk about war in the middle east or anywhere else, they should remember that it is easy to talk about it, easy to execute, but very difficult to end.
Mrs. Chalker: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have left Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops in Kuwait. The allied forces followed Security Council resolution 678 to the letter. Although the House does not wish Saddam Hussein to continue in office for one moment more, the matter must be sorted out by the Iraqi people. Until then, we must see how much help the international community can give to protect the Iraqi people.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) accept the thanks of the House for their visits, which have helped to maintain world interest in this tragedy at a time when the attention span of the international media is remarkably short? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should look to those countries that have felt unable, once again, to back Britain and America in sending military resources to help sort out the problems to provide greater financial resources in the humanitarian effort?
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those countries that find, for whatever reason, that they
782
cannot support our efforts in establishing safe havens in Turkey, Iran or Iraq, can contribute to relief by donating money. No nation can stand aside while this international tragedy continues. I hope that there will be a proper response to the United Nations' appeals, but I remind the House that that a proper response will come only when countries know what the United Nations intends to do with the money that it collects.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scale of the effort on behalf of the refugees is huge because, once safe havens have saved the refugees' lives, we shall have to help them to return to the places from which they came? The natural supply routes to the Kurdish areas lie through Baghdad and up the Tigris and the Euphrates valleys. Therefore, we must insist, through the United Nations, that Baghdad permits the transport of food and supplies and the restoration of towns and villages to their rightful owners—the refugees. Will she explain that problem carefully to the Secretary-General and ensure that such provision is made?
Mrs. Chalker: I shall do my best to explain why the United Nations must play a much more active role right away. However, a tremendous amount can be done in the interim to give the immediate relief to the Iraqi refugees and I am also working on that to ensure that it happens. I believe that the solution to the Iraqi refugees' problems against Saddam Hussein will take a long time to reach finality. In the meantime, there is much work to be done in providing relief. In that sense, the United Nations must get its act together.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I take it from the Minister's helpful statement that the practical priorities lie in getting people down from the mountains and reducing the queues and that, until those problems are dealt with, the suffering will continue? However, equally important are the political priorities, including a co-ordinated European effort, an effective United Nations takeover—I am grateful for the Minister's comments because the United Nations needs that push—and a political solution that guarantees that the peace treaty will protect the rights of all minority groups in Iraq and the adjacent countries in the middle east.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Bringing people down from the mountains and giving them a secure place is one of the first priorities. However, providing clean water, health care, food and shelter are also critical to saving lives, particularly as we bring down the most sick people first; others may remain on the mountains for days or even weeks until they can be brought down.
The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that there is a political priority within the European Community. I believe that the European Community countries are working well together in this respect. We want an effective United Nations reaction, but it is taking a long time to get up and running. The peace treaty must encompass the long-term security of the Iraq people. Without that there will be no peace.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When Martin Woollacott of The Guardian filed his copy to his news desk on 27 March, millions of refugees were on the move and it did not take clairvoyance to predict what would happen—it was then well established.

783
On a more constructive note, may I ask the question that I asked the Secretary of State for Defence the other day because what he then described as hypothetical is reality? Discussions are taking place between the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish leadership. If those discussions lead to an agreement, will a British Minister go to the United Nations to seek a resolution to underpin any agreement that the two parties draw up? That is important for the Kurdish people because, if that initiative is taken, I believe the camps will empty and the people will go back to their towns, cities and communities in Kurdistan.
Mrs. Chalker: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's final question. We need to look carefully at that subject, because there is no doubt that we are all trying to establish peace in Iraq for the ordinary people of Iraq who have been so cruelly deceived by Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. However, there is absolutely no doubt that it is not a straightforward objective to achieve, so I ask the hon. Member to be a little patient. No stone will be left unturned to bring peace to the Iraqi people. If what he has described is the right way to proceed, we shall so proceed, but I shall not give a commitment in case something else comes into the picture. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that.
At the end of March, we asked the Turkish Government and other Governments how many people were approaching their countries trying to come in. The figures were nothing like those reported even in The Guardian newspaper. I believe that there was some anticipation by some press that was certainly not being reported by the Governments of the area.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her strenuous efforts to help refugees in Iran and Turkey. Does she not feel that other countries should be pulling far more weight? It is not just a question of the United Nations. What has happened to the European Community money? Is it not apparent that many countries are more than happy to leave us to it? Where is everyone else?
Mrs. Chalker: I know that certainly one British voluntary organisation received 2 million ecu of the European Community money within 24 hours of appealing for help to carry out its relief operations. There are probably many more such incidents with which I have not had time to catch up in the few hours since I landed back in this country.
The European Community countries are seeking to give help. My anxiety has been that the help has not been sufficiently co-ordinated. That was why I met French and German diplomats, and many others, in Ankara. I shall seek to do all that I can to see that the European Community countries pull together, but I believe that Britain, having given help relatively early, can pass on information and try to improve the overall help. We should not stop just because we are not satisfied with the actions of others.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given the scorching summer heat that is now upon that part of the world, and its consequences for bringing the waterborne diseases,the "silent assassins" that bring hepatitis, cholera and typhoid—who is right: Prince Sadruddin Khan, who, on behalf of
784
the United Nation's refugees, says that there have to be conditions for sanctions to be lifted, or the Attorney-General, who said during Questions Time that there was no legal impediment to bringing in the necessary provisions?
Will the Minister clear up whether Mr. Salinger is right in suggesting that it was the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who talked the Americans into all this? That is what he said to Mr. David Frost. Was he right?
Mrs. Chalker: I often see videos and television programmes that make me wonder where the information put across on them came from. The hon. Gentleman's final question falls into that category.
Nobody is unaware of the danger of waterborne diseases, although the areas in the northern provinces in which most of the refugees are now gathered are not as hot as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is because of the dangers from waterborne diseases that one of the main objectives of the first camp field centre, with its satellites, that we are setting up will be to sort out the public health needs of the camps in west Azerbaijan, as well as mother and child health. We are giving special attention to that serious matter.
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of her mission. Does she agree that the fate of the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south has underlined how fatal it would have been to appease Saddam Hussein? Will she assure us that the Government will seek to block his attempt to sell £2 billion worth of oil on the world market so long as he practises butchery in Baghdad and in northern and southern Iraq?
Mrs. Chalker: We regard Saddam Hussein's appeal as totally unacceptable. The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell the Minister, for what it is worth, that I am in complete agreement with her observation that the protected refugee camps ought to be administered by United Nations personnel as soon as possible? The terrible problems created by the war require decisive intervention by the United Nations. As yet there has been none.
What discussions have taken place in the security council on the urgent provision of supplies and the restoration of essential services to other areas of Iraq?
Mrs. Chalker: To the best of my knowledge, the Security Council has not discussed those matters in such detail. The British ambassador and the representatives of other European Community countries have discussed the question, but the Security Council has not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his other comments.
Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome what the British Government are doing. I should like the Minister to spell out in more detail what contribution some of the rich Arab oil sheikdoms and the Japanese are making to providing humanitarian relief. What may happen if the United Nations is not prepared to police the safe havens? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the British Government might have to dig themselves in for a long haul? Saddam Hussein will bide his time until the protection for the Kurds is removed, before finishing off

785
the job that he started some time ago. Will the British Government give an undertaking to maintain a military presence until the safety of the Kurds is assured?
Mrs. Chalker: Japan has sent money for supplies. I believe that it may have been used for local purchase in Turkey, but I do not yet know how much it was. I shall try to find out what each country is doing, because co-ordination of information, among other things, has been desperately lacking in the past three and a half weeks. We seek to act on a bilateral basis with other donors, but in the rapidly changing situation we cannot know at all stages what each country has done. I hope in due time to be able to give the information to the House.
The position of the United Nations is worrying, but I believe that it fully intends to fulfil its responsibilities. The question is, how soon? We envisage needing to stay in the area for several months rather than weeks, but we shall do all that we can to ensure that United Nations personnel will be present to look after the refugees. The United Nations disaster relief organisation and the High Commissioner for Refugees exist to do just that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister will be aware that many hundreds, if not thousands, of tonnes of much-needed materials have been collected by voluntary organisations to send to the Kurds. Does she know how much of this material has gone overseas, how much is in storage, and how much will go next week? Is some of the material included in the figures which she has given the House?
Is there not a great problem about the capacity of RAF aircraft and aircraft that we are hiring? Should we riot be seeking to hire aircraft such as American C5 Galaxies, which can carry 125 tonnes? Presumably such aircraft could land readily at Iranian airports, bearing in mind that Iran Air operates Boeing 747s, which can carry 100 tonnes of material. Such aircraft are coming to the United Kingdom to collect material.
Mrs. Chalker: Huge quantities of relief supplies from quite small voluntary organisations and from more major organisations, such as the Save the Children Fund, the British Red Cross and Oxfam, have gone with our initial airlifts. We shall continue to operate our airlifts, and tonight we are flying out for Oxfam water equipment and vehicles for the water project that is being participated in by the Army in Turkey. That is one example among many of what is taking place. We have agreed already to help British Aid for the Kurds—a new organisation—in just that way, and we shall continue to provide that assistance.
We seem to have adequate capacity with our cargo planes, some of which will be flying to airports that are not served by Iran Air and therefore may not have the capacity to take a Galaxy or a 747. Provided that they can take 707s, we can get supplies in quickly and efficiently.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is not the simple truth that the Government both underestimated the need and were far too slow to react to a problem that was evident as long ago as 27 March? Was it not only when my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) went to see the plight of the people for herself that the Minister was stirred into action?
Will the Minister admit that it was unwise to appear to link humanitarian aid to the release of the hostages? We
786
are all, of course, fighting for their release. Will she admit that even now the aid that she has announced this afternoon is not enough? The much maligned German Government are sending five planes a day, while we are talking of only about four planes a week. The German Government have announced aid amounting to £130 million over the past few days while we have anounced aid of only a few millions today. The French Minister with responsibilities for aid visited the area and was present throughout Easter while our Minister has only recently visited it, and has only just returned.
Will the Minister join us in thanking the British people for the way in which they have volunteered—I speak of doctors and nurses—to go out and help? We thank the British people for the way in which they have given financial assistance. Will the Minister admit that if we are effectively to tackle such a huge problem we shall need just a fraction of the determination and the resources that went into fighting the Gulf war?
Mrs. Chalker: I am quite surprised at the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am not.
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. and learned Friend seems to think that his intervention was true to form. Never mind, I remain surprised.
None of the Governments in the area had made available to us at the end of March any of the information which the hon. Gentleman claims to have known about. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) could go to the area. I know that her trip helped a great deal to bring these matters to the notice of the British people, who indeed have been generous. Nothing that the hon. Lady was doing and saying was not being told to us through other channels.
I am well aware that it is easy to appear to be competitive on these occasions. I have no intention of taking up that position. The Iraqi refugees need all the help they can get. We, the British people, will give all we can, and the Government will put in more resources. What I have said today I described as initial and immediate. We cannot deliver immediately without preparing for that delivery. That became clear to me as I worked with the experts over the past 10 days to try to make the whole system more efficient.
May I say for the umpteenth time that I have never linked the questions of aid and the hostages, although many newspapers sought to link the two. I have always said that help to the Iraqi refugees is quite separate and quite different from any of our bilateral considerations. However, I would have been severely criticised had I gone to Tehran, the first British Minister to go there for 12 years, without having mentioned it. When I was asked, "Will you mention the subject of the hostages when you go to Iran?", of course the answer had to be yes.
Let us put some common sense into the matter and understand that, together with our partners throughout the world, we shall go on giving humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees and we shall try to make the communications and co-ordination much better. At the same time, we shall work bilaterally to seek the release of innocent hostages.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I will be able to assist you and the House. As you know, there has been intense public speculation about and interest in the GCE O-levels of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with the result that many hon. Members are being asked by the press to supply details of their O-level qualifications and school reports. For the record, I have a list of degrees as long as my arm, most of which were purchased very cheaply from the back pages of Private Eye, something which I would encourage the Prime Minister to do. Would it assist you, Mr. Speaker, if Members of Parliament now lodged copies of their GCE O-level certificates with the Registrar of Members' Interests so that any press inquiries can be speedily resolved by the registrar himself?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could log his four O-levels voluntarily.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order refers to this afternoon's questions. Is not it unseemly in the parliamentary sense, as well as being deeply offensive, for a Minister responsible for shipping to claim that more fishermen are lost at sea under a Labour Administration than under a Tory Administration?
Mr. Speaker: This is a continuation of Question Time. I am not responsible for answers that are given at the Dispatch Box.

Statutory Instruments &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions on statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Funeral Industry
4.32 pm
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I beg to move,
That this House considers there is a need for an investigation into prices and practices of the funeral industry with a view to seeking to provide a Bill to establish a funeral industry registration council and to give that council powers and functions for the regulation of firms and individuals offering funeral services and arrangements; to provide the council with powers and functions to ensure that persons employed as funeral directors shall be trained and qualified to approved levels and to require the registration of all firms and persons providing funeral services with the council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision for the adequate training of persons employed as funeral directors; to make provision for a code of conduct under which all such firms and persons shall provide their funeral services and to ensure a satisfactory level of consumer protection for these services; to define offences under this code of conduct and specified penalties; and to make provision for other related matters.
Several hon. Members were intrigued when they learned that it was my intention to table a motion about the funeral industry. On three or four occasions, over three or four years, I have called in this Chamber for an inquiry into the prices and practices of the industry. In 1989, I secured an Adjournment debate, in which I dealt in detail with a report issued by the Office of Fair Trading. I dealt with some of the unpalatable experiences that several of my constituents had endured. These related both to price and to treatment.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it envisaged that the funeral industry registration council to which the motion refers would cover the whole United Kingdom, or would it be restricted to England and Wales? Over the years, I have received many complaints about the high cost of funerals in Scotland and about related matters.
Mr. Cunliffe: If the motion were accepted, and a registration council were set up, I should like it to embrace all four countries in the United Kingdom.
I referred to the Adjournment debate on this subject in 1989. In view of the time constraints, one is restricted in one's comments in such a debate. Indeed, the convention is that the time is shared equally between the Member raising the subject and the Minister replying.
For me, this whole matter started in 1977 or 1978, when a constituent wrote to me following the deaths, first, of her father and then, within a matter of months, of her mother. The services required in the case of the second funeral were exactly the same as those required in the case of the first, but, to this lady's amazement, there was a price difference of £108. To some people, funerals are extremely expensive, and this lady was rather distressed, as she was not in employment.
In the first instance, my constituent contacted the company involved. She was told that, between the dates of the two funerals, the original firm had been taken over by a larger company, and that that company had laid down certain guidelines about standards and profit margins. When I examined the two accounts, I discovered that the £108 was accounted for by an increase in coffin price and an increase in what are known as professional charges. That is something to which I shall refer in considerable detail later.
I wrote to the company.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: What is the name of the company?
Mr. Cunliffe: I shall give the name later. In fact, since the takeover, the name has changed. The firm is now owned by a multinational company. Later, I shall refer in great detail to it and to other companies. When I wrote a letter to that company, I received a reply similar to that sent to my constituent, but I was pleased that it included a £100 refund.
Within a matter of weeks, there was a similar incident involving another firm of undertakers in my constituency. When I wrote to that company, I received almost the identical reply that I got from the first, and another £100 rebate for the constituent concerned. I began to think that, if the profit margins were so high that companies could make rebates of that size every time they received a formal inquiry into the cost of a particular funeral, those margins needed investigation.
In my research, I discovered that there had been a gradual takeover of many traditional, independent funeral directors in the north by large companies. As costs were also rising rapidly, I sought an Adjournment debate, which coincided with the publication of a report by the Director General of Fair Trading, which had some startling things to say about certain practices and establishments, and about a tendency to create monopolies.
There was also a 30-question survey of about 900 people who had recent experience of dealing with funeral directors. At that time, the National Association of Funeral Directors operated a voluntary code of practice, which made for greater clarity in respect of estimates, the type of funeral, and the services to be provided—a hearse or limousine, embalming, and so on—in ensuring a reasonably simple and dignified funeral. According to the OFT investigation, that code of practice was being honoured by only 25 per cent. of funeral directors.
Dying is a taboo subject which touches people's sensitivities and emotions. The job of the funeral director is one which requires superb diplomacy, and there is a natural reluctance to delve too deeply into the question of cost at the time that a funeral is being arranged.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Did that survey make the point, in respect of advice being sought by any individual, including even a distant relative, that the person who makes the initial contact with the funeral director is liable for the cost at the end of the day?
Mr. Cunliffe: I have no knowledge that that is the case, and it was not covered by the investigation that I mentioned.
Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Member for Leigh have any evidence that the percentage of funeral directors abiding by the code of conduct has increased from 25 per cent. since 1989, or has it remained static?
Mr. Cunliffe: The National Association of Funeral Directors represents a respected and honourable profession, and I shall refer to it in due course. I shall also give more figures later, but there has been some response to the inquiry's findings in respect of that earlier code of conduct. I shall quote also the new code of conduct that was adopted in May 1990.
Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the need to maintain high standards of service—I am entirely with him on that—and competition if those high standards are to be achieved. Will he comment on the increasing practice in some parts of the country, whereby local authorities make a monopolistic municipal deal with one funeral director? The intention might be to provide a lower-cost service, but it will be subsidised by the community charge payer. Might not that ultimately harm competition and the protection available to the members of a community, if it results in fewer companies and less choice?
Mr. Cunliffe: Municipal authorities are not allowed to own any form of funeral company. They are permitted only to provide a service, and it cannot be related to any element of the community charge under existing legislation—and I do not imagine that such a thing will be allowed in any future legislation.
There are approximately 650,000 funerals a year, but the number is declining, and I shall explain the reasons for that. There are about 2,500 funeral directors, with a total turnover of from £250 million to £270 million a year in direct funeral costs, and another £100 million to £120 million in ancillary services such as the provision of flowers, cards, the saying of masses, and so on. It is therefore a pretty big commercial operation. One does not like to associate commercialism with a distressing aspect of life, but that commercialism is a fact.
Why have large undertakings moved into the industry? Is it because they find certain aspects of it extremely profitable? That is a cause for concern.
Mr. Roger Knapman: The hon. Gentleman makes the point, as he did in his Adjournment debate in 1989, that the funeral industry is making excessive profits. Is not it interesting, however, that the Co-operative Wholesale Society recently saw fit to dispose of its undertaking business? In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, why should it have done so?
Mr. Cunliffe: In recent months, other large companies have decided to sell. The reason is all to do with investment and profit margins, and I do not exclude any organisation of whatever size and character from criticism—and in some cases compliments. I shall return to that issue.
In 1989, on average, the cost of funerals increased by 28 per cent. more than inflation and there was some harsh criticism, some people believed quite rightly, of the industry's performance. In fairness to all the organisations connected with the industry, I should say that such increases above the rate of inflation have not continued, although, in my view, funerals are generally overpriced.
I decided that if I intended to comment on or to criticise the industry, I had to carry out an inside investigation, which I did with the help of several researchers. I investigated the average cost of a manufacturer's coffin throughout the country compared with the amount charged by the funeral companies.
In the meantime, as there had been scathing criticism of the industry, I introduced the Funeral Industry Bill, a simple Bill which called for the establishment of a compulsory code of practice for funeral directors and the funeral industry. The Bill called for written estimates, for full price lists, for the code of practice to be prominently displayed and for details to be given of the cost of the

791
coffin and its fittings, the hearse, funeral cars, care and removal of the body, embalming costs and administrative charges.
Funeral directors are now developing public relations of a highly sophisticated standard. People now pay for their death on hire purchase and for pre-arranged funerals. Lovely velvet phrases such as "Dignity in Destiny" are being trotted out, and I shall deal with that issue.
My Bill sought to bring the questions that were being asked about the industry to the fore and to subject the abuses and practices within the industry to public scrutiny. That is also what I seek to do today.
In my Adjournment debate in 1989, I gave some simple illustrations. At Christmas of that year, I took the liberty of spending two days "on the tools" at a coffin manufacturers. I did an "A to Z" follow-through and I spent a couple of days working as an engineer at a factory that supplies coffins to some of the large companies that I shall describe later. I looked at the prices of coffins—invoiced, costed and supplied, giving the firm's name—which was very good of the coffin manufacturer. The problems that I mentioned earlier about profit margins were evident. I shall give the 1989 figures, but update them with those of other manufacturers to be fair to the industry.
I have some funeral bills with me—those that I mentioned earlier—and it appears that the average cost of the two main coffins that were being produced for cremation at that time were £18 for the cheapest and £27·50 for the dearest, depending on the grade. All the coffins were given names of splendour, such as "Queensbury" or "Richmond"—velvet titles are again attached to them. I was able to trace coffins through from the manufacturers to funeral companies involved, including those used by the constituents that I previously mentioned. I found that the average price charged by the funeral director for a £19·50 coffin was £154. I have the bills here.
Then I looked into the cost of dearer types of coffin. They range from the simple basic models that I have described to those made of solid oak. The average margin between the cost of production and supply, and the final price charged, was between 400 and 500 per cent. In some instances it was 1,000 and in one case it was 1,100 per cent. The profit margins are identifiable.
The more that I research the industry and the more letters that I receive, the more convinced I become that there can be only two areas where profits are down—the price of the coffin and the professional charges.
I decided that I might as well research the matter properly, and I went to work in two funeral parlours. I showed great respect, and I did a sort of apprenticeship by trying out embalming for about four hours—although not on a real body—which was quite interesting. These are the facts of life. It is "feet on the ground" not feet in the ground.
I also assembled coffins, putting on the handles and the nameplates and, as an ex-engineer, I used time and motion studies to prove how long it took and how it was done, whether by high technology or manually, using a screwdriver or a hammer.
Then I decided to look into professional charges. I was investigating two small independent undertakers and I
792
asked what the professional charges embraced. Embalming was a separate charge and was an extra £25 or in some cases £40. I asked the companies to give me a professional charge that was generous to themselves and was not the minimum price. They told me that on average they charged for 10 hours' worth of professional charges, which would give them reasonable profit margins.
However, one of the takeover companies has a standard professional charge based on 40 hours per funeral, which is roughly £350, although it depends on the region, as there are large regional differences in the prices of funerals. During debates on the radio and on television, the companies stuck to that figure, and they have done so again during the past few days. We have substantiated that matter within the industry.
I shall read some of the letters that I have had from funeral directors with 30 and 40 years' experience, who have had doubts and they relate evidence that I suggest is conclusive that such professional charges are a direct rip-off, as are coffin charges.
Disbursements are a separate matter and include the vicar's charges, church services, and gratuities. No one is arguing about the cost of those.
Let me quote the up-to-date figures. I have received strictly confidential information giving the names of 19 firms that operate throughout the country under one name, UKF. It is not a large company, but it has taken over 19 firms. I shall mention larger firms later. I am referring to 1990 prices. I have ignored the 16 per cent. increase in the price of coffins on 1 September 1990. A Chester coffin, supplied for £33·12, costs £170 to £200. The Norwich coffin, supplied for £60, costs £330 to £350.
The firms point out, however, that the accessories must not be forgotten. Metal handles cost £8·54 per set, but a charge of £42 is made for them. Nameplates can be supplied in plastic or metal. Plastic nameplates cost 69p. If all those costs are added up, they amount to only a reasonable £55, but the funeral charge totals £615. I asked the firms involved, and they did not try to hide the charges. One United Kingdom company has a published turnover of £2·5 million and profits of £500,000. It does not deny those figures.
Mr. Ashton: I understand that the latest figures supplied by Hodgson Holdings, the biggest entrepreneur in the business, show that its predicted profit will be £5·3million on a turnover of £30 million. Has my hon. Friend had any dealings with that firm?
Mr. Cunliffe: I have had many dealings with it, especially with its previous chief executive. After a brilliant entrepreneurial career, unfortunately he has recently left the company. Far be it from me to speculate about the reasons; I do not know. However, I admire the entrepreneurial skill with which the company that my hon. Friend mentioned was built up. Its turnover increased from £14,000 to about £78 million.
The industry is contracting. The reason is that people are living longer. During the next few years, the annual number of people who die—at present 650,000—will come down to about 600,000. That leads to other problems, including the money that will have to be found for the care of the elderly. As a compassionate nation, however, we ought to be prepared to meet the challenge.
According to the Royal College of Nursing, the startling fact is that in 1985 there were 2,416,000 women

793
over the age of 75 and that by the year 2001, which is not that far away, that number will have increased to 2,802,560—a 16 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 525,000 women over the age of 85. By the year 2001, there will be 840,000, a staggering increase of 60 per cent.
In 1985, there were 1,202,000 men over the age of 75. By the year 2001, that figure will have increased to 1,598,660—a 33 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 158,000 men over the age of 85. By 2001, that figure will have increased to 321,900—a 110 per cent. increase. One does not need to be a great mathematician to realise, having studied those figures, that the industry is contracting. Most of us welcome that fact.
I have received many letters about funeral company takeovers. There has been a tremendous reduction in the number of independent funeral directors. In the past, one did not shop around for the best price funerals. Automatically one went to the local undertaker who had been used by the family for generations. Hundreds of them have disappeared in recent years. At a private meeting with the chief executive of Hodgson Holdings, Howard Hodgson, I asked him, "How on earth can you reconcile the increased demand for your services with your masquerade of using the name of local family undertakers? The many letters that I have received prove it."
Mr. Ashton: Is not it a fact that Mr. Hodgson has said that, when he buys companies, he buys their good will, not their assets? The good will is the name over the shop, and that is what he pays for. My hon. Friend is right about that being a form of deception about the service required.
Mr. Cunliffe: My hon. Friend is right. Good will is attached to the name of small family undertakers. I discussed the problem with Mr. Hodgson. These large companies are employing high-profile publicity methods. Actors and acresses are used, including Sir Harry Secombe, who sings on some of the tapes. Incidentally, that firm is no longer called Hodgson Holdings but PHK International, and it has a French chairman. It has cornered 15 to 16 per cent. of the market. Another company has cornered 25 per cent. of the 650,000 deaths each year. Just a handful of companies control the market.
I was impressed by Mr. Hodgson, a young entrepreneur. When I spoke for the first time in the House in a debate on industry—this was in 1979—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told me that the Government's policies would lead to a galaxy of entrepreneurs, the like of which had never before been seen in this country. I do not think that at that time we envisaged that the growth industry would be the funeral industry. However, this young man moved into it and did a remarkable job by turning Hodgson Holdings into a highly professional company which, as I have already said, has now been taken over.
Having absorbed hundreds of local undertakers, the companies have created a problem. I illustrate that point with a letter that I received:
"From the Manchester Evening News … I see that you are to raise a question in the House with regard to big companies making "take-overs" in the funeral business and to the large price increases which stem from this. I applaud you in this endeavour because I have personally experienced unease in these methods. I have been engaged in the funeral business on my own account for the last 36 years at least and have attained our professional qualifications of Dip. F.D. and am a member of the BIFD"—
not the National Association of Funeral Directors—
794
"In 1974 I formed by own limited company in my own name but as I neared retirement age, I decided to sell my share capital"—
to a firm that I shall not name. Again, it was a local firm hiding under the aegis of a big company, which is Hodgson Holdings.
The letter continues:
"However in 1986 I was to discover that"
the company
"had been taken over by Hodgsons Holdings of Birmingham and that my consultancy was included but only as far as the Employees Protection Act allowed. Very quickly after take-over I came to realise that I simply could not accept their methods or standards … I refused to sign my acceptance of the terms of contract being offered to me and resigned the consultancy as soon as was possible.
I find it hard to accept that having sold a limited company a 2nd time buyer can trade in my name"—
which illustrates the point that I am trying to make—
"but not continue in the style of limited company … I feel most strongly that the professionalism that can be reasonably expected is now being rapidly eroded"—
the professionalism and standards of our funeral directors—
"I also consider that there is a further danger in that the professional bodies which were formed to uphold the principles".
I put that issue to the National Association of Funeral Directors. The letter continues that to a great extent that body is being
"membered and officered by servants of these same big companies."
I have had a great deal of experience in such matters. Just recently, I have dealt with some television programmes and people who were supposed to represent the associations but who, at the end of the day, were playing the company men. That is understandable. Hundreds of funeral directors have been taken over, but what happens then? They face conflicting loyalties—the companies or their profession. The honourable conduct of their profession is challenged by profit motives and margins. People are subject to pressures about their beliefs and qualifications for this honourable profession.
I challenge the NAFD: "Are you company men first and directors of your association second?" That is the issue with which we must deal. On every programme on which I have appeared during the past three or four years, people have said that they represented the NAFD but basically, they put the companies' view. They spoke for about 40 hours about the price of funerals. I am trying to make the profession—the industry—first class and honourable, to dignify it and to give it status in the form of registration. At the moment, anyone can be a funeral director.
The NAFD must make up its mind. Why does it oppose compulsory codes of conduct, but want a compulsory form of registration for funeral directors, for companies and for training? It cannot have it both ways, and that is the problem. The more independent funeral directors that are taken over by the big battalions, the greater will be the conflict of loyalties. That is one of the problems that must be endured. Unless we do something, the problem will accelerate and the industry will be treated with contempt.
Mr. Bowis: I should like to clarify—for my sake and perhaps for that of the House—the point that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is making. He spoke about trying to maintain professionalism and good practice when small companies are taken over. I entirely agree, but a few minutes ago—when he quoted the letter—he implied that, when a small company continued under

795
its old name despite a change of ownership, something misleading—if not dishonest—occurred. If that is what he is saying, there is a principle that crosses professions, including bankers. For example, there is no longer a Mr. Coutts at Coutts and Co. and the same is true of soap powders, bookshops and Fox's glacier mints. Fox's was taken over by Rowntree, which was taken over by Mackintosh. The change of name is not important, but, as the hon. Gentleman is rightly saying now, it is important that the standard of service continues irrespective of ownership.
Mr. Cunliffe: I shall reply to that question by repeating what I said to Howard Hodgson: "If you want a Rolls-Royce or Marks and Spencer image, why do you still retain the identity of the village undertaker? If you seek to raise the standards of professionalism and commercialism, why do you do that?" There is no answer. With respect, one would not suggest that, because bookmakers have lifted themselves up, we should all make lords of bookmakers.
There is no reason for companies to be so secretive. The public will understand and they would prefer an honest description of the undertaking with which they enter into a contract to the faceless men in boardrooms—not just in this country. I shall speak later about some foreign companies that are buying their way into our industry.
I received a second letter from an established funeral director, in which he said that he was pleased with my stance on the funeral profession on a television programme. He wrote:
"I was a Funeral Director for 30 years until March 1988 and very proud of my calling but not any longer. My company was purchased by Hodgson Holding's plc in March 1988. This, I strongly add, was not with my blessing but back stabbing in the Board Room allowed this."
That is as good a way to put it as any other. The letter continues:
"In 1987 and 1988 I envisaged that if the trend of takeovers was to carry on the Funeral Profession would finish up being owned by large multiple monopolies and the bereaved families when they were at their lowest ebb could only finish up getting not as good personal service and higher charges. The matter was reported to the Monopolies and Fair Trading Commissions by myself"
but nothing came of it.
The writer goes on to say that he worked in the private trade. He says that he is not of my political complexion or disposition. He states that there is massive exploitation of employees, but, because of his contractual restrictions, he cannot say much more. What he does say is too much because of the restrictions placed on him. He wrote:
"I wish I could say more but … free speech is not allowed."
I would not go as far as that, but he states that it is far better that he does not write in detail about the companies under his control that were taken from him.
He submitted pages from the Merseyside telephone directory, which have been ticked to show every company that has been taken over. There are 18 companies in that region. About 14,000 funerals a year are carried out in Manchester and Liverpool. The service is fairly typical, although it is cheaper than in some other regions. The companies bear witness to the points about which we have been talking.
796
Municipalisation is another relevant factor. What do authorities seek in providing a funeral service? The first intention is to provide a reasonably costed and dignified funeral service. A quotation is provided containing the full cost, including, importantly, disbursements prior to the funeral. Most companies separate the two costs. Funeral directors cannot negotiate disbursements because they are fixed. That is a fair comment. The service has to be a full service with the basic trimmings and with no corners cut. Everything must be managed with dignity and the service should be indistinguishable from any other funeral service. The funeral service must always benefit the residents within the local authority area, in terms of the service itself and in terms of a possible increase in the number of cremations carried out in council crematoria. Are the criteria met?
I advised two authorities on the municipal provision of funeral services. The services that we negotiated are described as follows:
"I feel that without a doubt a 'reasonably priced, dignified' funeral has been provided and all the costs are known before a funeral takes place, thus providing some protection for consumers when at their most vulnerable. Criteria two, I feel also has been met in that a full service is provided to a very high specification".
I have compared the service with that provided by private suppliers, from the manufacture of coffins, through all the elements to the funeral service itself. All that has been thoroughly examined. The municipal services are equally good. No problems are attached and there is more direct control even than that of a funeral director in a private company.
The costs are well known. We have provided protection for the consumer and the services have been personally vetted on a random basis. The service is not distinguishable in any shape or form from other funerals. To date, there has been no adverse comment. I put that point to the National Association of Funeral Directors which mainly defends the large companies. How can it reconcile the fact that some of the large companies are now putting in tenders to provide municipal funeral services, with all the elements of the simple basic funeral about which I have talked, at roughly £350 to £400? They are the companies that, when not providing the municipal funeral service, charge about £800 to £900. They are the same firms. Are they short of work, or are they undercutting because there is a bit of a recession? What is happening? For many years, I served on the Bolton metropolitan authority. It provides a funeral service at £375, with disbursements included. Wigan provides such a service, with qualified people from the National Association of Funeral Directors.
There is a need to examine the matter in some detail —and I should prefer a Select Committee to do that—to lift the lid off the industry in every facet and to give evidence on it. If the NAFD or the big boys in the association gave open evidence, it would be subject to scrutiny by the House and by the public. What has the association got to lose by that?
I want to quote the classic example of Hodgson Holdings. I must be fair and say that it is not the only big battalion in the industry. There are Greggs, Chosen Heritage and Quartz, among others. Two of those companies comprise 35 to 40 per cent. of the industry now. The more mergers that take place between the companies, the bigger the potential for monopoly takeovers which will create an even worse position in terms of artificial prices.

797
I do not accuse the companies of that at this stage, but I refer to the words of Howard Hodgson. He said that Hodgson Holdings now had 11 per cent. of the industry and was moving into the range of 15 per cent. He hoped that it would climb to 25 per cent. I do not believe that the aim of 25 per cent. being controlled by one company and 25 per cent. by another will be achieved, but that has been said clearly by the heads of the companies that I have mentioned. I make no comment on what happened to the person about whom I have spoken, because he has since left.
The aims of the Bolton municipal service are clear:
"The scheme provides a dignified funeral service at a reasonable cost … The collection of the deceased from within the borough or within a 10 mile radius of the borough boundary."
That is fair comment. We should not like subsidies to other authorities which could be used to subsidise other features. That service also includes
"Embalming., dressing and a place at the funeral undertakers' Chapel of Rest. Free conveyance to the Chapel of Rest for relatives with transport difficulties. All arrangements at the crematorium or cemetery. A hearse and following limousine. A second hearse as floral car. The Funeral Service. An oak veneer coffin".
On the figures that I have supplied, an oak veneer coffin alone can cost £590 from private suppliers. The service also includes fees charged by the doctor. One company charges an average of £42·50, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) knows. The service also includes a clergyman and the crematorium. The list of services continues:
"Transport of deceased to church or chapel prior to disposal."
The figure for all that last year was £366.
The National Association of Funeral Directors believed that it was unfairly criticised by the Office of Fair Trading. It has replied on many points, and I acclaim the fact that it has drawn up a substantial, important and dignified code of conduct. Hodgson Holdings wrote to me that it agreed with the Bill that I proposed on a code of conduct. The National Association of Funeral Directors said that it agreed, as did the big companies and the trade unions. Yet there is some opposition to the compulsory registration of the code of practice. I do not understand the logic of that.
We must consider how other elements in the industry react to any form of criticism. Their reaction is understandable. Although we as politicians are usually calm and meek, we become all prickles, like hedgehogs, when we are criticised. I understand that.
I am convinced, and I want the Department of Trade and Industry to understand, that there is cause for concern and a need for a genuine examination of the industry. Certain matters have still not been resolved. I hope that the Minister will give me some assurances and possibly undertakings, as the previous Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs did when I last debated the matter. The previous Minister promised that there would be immediate and urgent talks with the industry and the National Association of Funeral Directors. I hope that the Minister will have something positive to offer at the end of this debate to me and to other hon. Members who may speak in the debate.
I return to the report. It says that the code can have value only if it is demonstrably taken seriously and complied with. It also says:
798
"The Office is disturbed and disappointed by the survey's findings that, to a significant extent, the key requirements of the code—those relating to price lists, written estimates and the basic simple funeral—are not being observed."
I venture to say that there has been a vast improvement, and I commend those in the industry who brought it about. It was brought about mainly by the association through the high standards in its code of practice. I pay fair tribute to that improvement, and rightly so. However, there is room for further improvement. The registration, licensing and regulation of funeral directors and companies will help to make them far more professional and raise the standards and values that we attach to the industry. That is what the Office of Fair Trading sought to do and what some of us seek to do.
The report says:
"Compliance with the obligation to explain the types of funeral on offer is somewhat better,"—
we concede that—
"but still not as good as the Office would like.… Moreover, the performance of NAFD members in most of these respects is not conspicuously better that that of non-members … some funeral directors do not believe that the principles which the Office, and the Price Commission before it, have sought to establish in the industry are relevant to the way in which they do business."
That is regrettable. I cannot understand a profession that is reluctant to lift its standards and values. However, the report said:
"the Office would not want to see the code dismissed as worthless. Implementation of the recommendations aimed at improving the code ought to encourage efforts to secure greater compliance. More generally, therefore, the Office's final recommendation is that the NAFD should indicate, within six months of this report, what specific steps it proposes to take in order to achieve greater compliance with the code."
I am glad to say that the NAFD has made tremendous progress. I hope that the Minister will dot the i's and cross the t's. I applaud the association and acclaim its success. Nothing that we say in this debate in any sense invalidates the fairly good reputation of 95 per cent. of our funeral directors. I do not seek, and nor would the House seek, to distort the image that they have successfully built up.
My motion asks the Minister whether more formal intervention is needed. The report said:
"More formal intervention may, however, be needed if the efforts of the NAFD and of individual funeral directors do not lead to visible improvements in the operation of this market. In that event, the Office would want to review the options under existing or new legislation."
That was said not by me but by the OFT, which the House has set up to defend consumer interests. This is the will of Parliament. The report said that in the event of a lack of visible improvements, it might have to consider referring the industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We are moving rapidly in that direction. The only thing that will stop it is a decline in the industry due to a contraction of the number of funerals. However, the House should remember that, if the big battalions remain, the number of funerals is smaller and large companies increase their share of the market, they will creep nearer and nearer the notorious 25 per cent. of the market, when the MMC has to say halt. As some people will remember, that happened to one great funeral organisation in the United Kingdom.
I am sorry that the National Association of Funeral Directors treated the making of an order as a threat. It

799
wrote to me on the subject. I am not exactly accountable to the Director General of Fair Trading and nor is he to us. The OFT report said:
"Another more specific and immediate possibility might be the making of a price marking order under section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 as amended. Such an order can be made to require charges for specific services to be indicated and may stipulate the manner in which any charge should be indicated."
That is a serious step to take.
The previous president of the association wrote to me last year on the matter. The association produced a new code in May 1990, which I commend to the House, entitled "The Role of the Funeral Director". It is a splendid document. It could do with having the i's dotted and the t's crossed—not by compulsion but voluntarily—but it is a step in the right direction. Mr. John Lodge, the national president of the NAFD wrote:
"Dear Mr. Cunliffe,
I am grateful for the interest and support that we have had from you and your fellow MPs following the publication of our report 'The Role of the Funeral Director' which I sent to you in February.
Parliamentary pressure"—
that is us to them, and rightly so—
"has been considerable and the Director General of Fair Trading has felt obliged to publish a long and detailed defence on the OFT's handling of its report on funerals."
The OFT has been put on the defensive.
"I am sorry to tell you, however, that it looks as though the OFT is trying to penalise our Association for daring to criticise its report by seeking a Price Marking Order against our members. We have just negotiated our new Code of Practice with the OFT and the possibility of a Price Marking Order has only ever been mentioned as a means of ensuring cooperative negotiations. We cooperated fully as we have always done. So why is the OFT applying for an Order now? Surely we are entitled to write to you and our other MPs without risking sanctions for doing so?"
I take the point. The association has the right to make representations to us. Mr. Lodge continues:
"I enclose a copy of the new Code of Practice which is being published this week. Its predecessor was the only registered Code to have run its full ten years without need of review."
According to the Office of Fair Trading, it was not necessary to review the code when 75 per cent. of it was not honoured until inquiries were made and estimates sought for the survey.
The letter continues:
"We have always cooperated with Government agencies and this new Code is a product of such cooperation. In return we have been the victim of a damaging and unfairly compiled report. The Director General's long defence of his Office's conduct still leaves some major questions unanswered. Three of the more important are
Why was the publication of the report not delayed until the survey data on which it was based was available? Why were damaging allegations made on the basis of uncorroborated evidence? Why did the OFT issue such a sensational press release?"
Far be it from me at this stage to comment on that. I assume that those remarks have been put in writing to the Director-General of Fair Trading. I am confident that he will have replied, as Government agencies usually do, in technical, civil service gobbledegook, plus a few facts. I applaud that.
Recently, a journalist wrote about the regional disparities in the price of funerals, and mentioned a recent survey carried out by an independent body, the Odd
800
Fellows Manchester Unity friendly society. The survey was conducted in February, so is up to date. The newspaper report states:
"Burial costs in the North West are among the cheapest in the country.
Local funeral directors are charging an average of £864 for a burial complete with extras such as cars, plot fees, and obituaries.
That compares with bills of up to £990 in towns in the South West."
I do not know where the difference lies or how the figures are broken down. Why are there such vast regional disparities when the big firms in the industry and independent ones that are trying to establish their reputation are competing on price?
The report continues:
"Cremation costs are also lower in the region-the average all-in cost being £656."
The survey points out that, although the average basic funeral cost is £548, the cost including cremation is £574. The survey returns to the problem of funeral bills segregating disbursements from the cost of the funeral and professional charges. The report states:
"basic costs bear 'little relation' to the final bill to which disbursements have to be added—£345 in the case of burials and £152 for cremations."
As a plug, it continued:
"Leigh MP Lawrence Cunliffe, who has campaigned for years to cut the cost of funerals, welcomed the … survey.
Mr. Cunliffe said funeral directors in the North West had been forced to be more competitive as a result of his recent campaign."
That is a trivial point. I put it fairly and squarely to the House that the upturns and downturns in the industry and the price disparities are irreconcilable. Something must be wrong. We must act to restore some form of public confidence in the industry.
Great, distinguished public relations campaigns are taking place. It is now assumed, with some good reason, that the prices of funerals which are escalating more rapidly in some parts than in others, are a cause of public concern and need public scrutiny. There is something in that.
It now seems that hire purchase systems are being introduced into the funeral industry. Large companies are involved in public relations exercises. There is even a pack for Westminster people—for us—to pay for our funerals well in advance of our demise. The splendidly packaged HP system lists questions which may occur, such as why one's family should be faced with substantial amounts of funeral debts and bills; and suggests making provision by paying on a regular basis into a "Dignity in Destiny" scheme. The glossy package is entitled "Dignity in Destiny" and provides:
"A Pre-arranged Funeral Plan with Price and Service Guarantee".
The slow but sure and methodical Americanisation of our industry is conditioning us to believe that we have a responsibility not to burden our relatives even in death.
The glossy brochure incorporates "The Westminster Plan" and "The Windsor Plan". What do they ensure? They offer a guaranteed price for the funeral of one's choice. Relatives will not be faced with additional, unexpected bills, no matter how high costs rise. They guarantee the quality of the service—something which we should all like to establish once and for all. Payments can be made in a single lump sum or can be spread in instalments. They guarantee to observe one's wishes regarding funeral arrangements. They offer free advice and trained counsellors. One can join a plan at any age without

801
a medical examination—someone is on to a good wicket there. I am not suggesting that one would want to take advantage of that, but it has some attraction.
Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that newspapers and Age Concern have analysed some of those schemes which have been found to pay as little as 1 per cent. interest on the money invested which is repaid at the time of the funeral?
Mr. Cunliffe: I have sought some financial advice on this, although I am not a steward of the industry. One funeral director of a large company, who has a prominent position in the region, wrote to me off the record and asked me not to repeat that people would do far better by putting their money into a building society account or a long-term national savings certificate.
Mr. Burns: Can the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little on what happens if an individual tragically dies before completing all the instalments? Is there a built-in insurance policy within the instalments paid to take account of that, or would the relatives of the deceased face a problem if they did not complete the instalments?
Mr. Cunliffe: There is a partial commitment to honour a high percentage of the funeral costs, but there is always, as in hire purchase agreements, a clause at the bottom of the page. There are about five schemes. Some firms say that the costs are not fully covered under the insurance, and there is some controversy about whether a company should offer 100 per cent. protection.
Such schemes condition people's minds—politicians can be accused of that. It is a bit like the conflicting loyalty between the funeral director and his company. When I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the debate, he said, "It's like being a shop steward. You prove that you are a first-class guy and the next thing the company wants to make you a manager and you change sides." I said that that happens to politicians, too. He said, "That's my mate Dr. Death. He ought to be the Minister of Funerals as he has changed parties twice and perhaps will a third time." I said that that was rather uncharitable. Most politicians have scruples about their party, and we all have the right, as does a funeral director, to change.
Other hon. Members wish to contribute to this serious and possibly controversial debate. I shall therefore conclude by saying that I agree with some of the points made by the National Association of Funeral Directors. It has met at least part of the challenge. I shall do it the honour of referring to its wonderful booklet in which it speaks of the emotional support and the expert advice that it gives in practical services to the industry. It has no doubt tried to gild the lily by its recommendations and standards, but it has met the challenge voluntarily.
The debate involves a sensitive subject and it is important to end with a quote from William Ewart Gladstone.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Gosh.
Mr. Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman will understand the relationship between Gladstone and the new Minister for Funerals should that right hon. Gentleman enter the Conservative Cabinet. He has been in every party, so what is wrong with having a Liberal background? Gladstone said:
802
"Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender sympathies of its people, their respect for the law of the land and their loyalty to high ideals."
I support that. The National Association of Funeral Directors is the great baron of the funeral industry. This country has always treated its deceased and bereaved with dignity. They have the right to our compassion and understanding at times of great sorrow.
Let us make an honest endeavour to introduce the standards and values that I have exhorted the industry to adopt. It is not imperative but, if necessary, the Government should put the industry on a regulated footing and demand the highest standards and values to secure the comfort that a great nation can offer when mourning its people.
5.54 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has spoken for an hour and twenty minutes criticising the National Association of Funeral Directors.
Dr. Hampson: With respect, my hon. Friend is wrong. The hon. Gentleman went on that long to stop me making a pertinent and poignant attack on the incompetence, inefficiencies, mismanagement and wastefulness of Labour councils. He went on speaking because the Labour party does not want the next motion, which I have tabled, to be debated.
Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend made that point well. The hon. Member for Leigh has decided views on the funeral industry, but what stuck in the craw was when the magic word "profit" came into the argument. I shall not detain the House for such a long time.
I have an interest in this debate, in that the coroner of Westminster is a namesake of mine, Dr. Paul Knapman. I am not sure whether he is a relative, but when I bought my son and myself two darkish coats—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has his desk next to mine—the secretaries in Old Palace yard called us the undertakers.
In Victorian times, sex was taboo—piano legs were covered, and so on—but death was regularly discussed, and it was not unusual for a family with five, six or eight children to expect to lose one or two of them. People were used to speaking about death. Now the roles seem to be reversed. Every publication seems obsessed with sex, but there is a taboo about death. The hon. Member for Leigh does the House a service by introducing this motion.
However, I am afraid that I must qualify those congratulations. I have read the motion and I like the first line and a bit:
"To call attention to the need for registration of and a code of conduct for the funeral industry".
The next 14 lines refer to setting up councils, giving powers, and quangos. That can achieve only one thing —to strangle the industry concerned, if that is possible with the funeral industry, in a mass of red tape.
The hon. Gentleman has largely followed, but also elaborated on, the speech that he made in an Adjournment debate on 6 February 1989.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It was an excellent speech.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it was an excellent speech. That is why we have now heard it twice. I intend to read a passage from the reply of the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), so I fear that some people may shortly be bored to death. My hon. Friend said:
"I would like to remind the House of the context of the OFT report. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to encourage associations to adopt codes of practice providing a standard which promotes and safeguards the interests of consumers. There are currently 26 such codes endorsed by the director general and they form a valuable part of the consumer protection framework. The Government are convinced that effective self-regulation is better than regulation."
I hope that the Government's position has not changed from that day to this and that the present Minister, my hon. Friend the member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will make his usual high-calibre contribution to the debate and largely repeat those words.
For much of the time, the hon. Member for Leigh discussed costs. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister answered him briefly but adequately in the course of the Adjournment debate and said:
"the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included in his bill, funeral directors' own costs such as staff and equipment may have risen above the costs of inflation and the two OPCS surveys are not directly comparable."—
those are the two to which the hon. Gentleman referred—
"Indeed, I did not read the OFT report as necessarily suggesting that funeral directors are overcharging".—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 779.]
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a speech which, like me, he seems to know well. I am puzzled especially by the question of who controls the salaries and other staff costs if they are not controlled by the funeral directors. Ministers constantly tell us that businesses are responsible for their own staffing costs, but I suspect that that is a red herring.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand his hon. Friend's speech. He criticises the level of charges. I have never before heard an Opposition Member say that staff do not earn enough, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's conversion. He criticised the charges that those companies make. As the hon. Member for Leigh knows, because he has studied the matter in great depth, charges have gone up by 28 per cent. above the rate of inflation in the past 15 years——
Mr. Cunliffe: Twelve years.
Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says 12 years, but many industries must have a worse record than that.
Dr. Hampson: Being present by force majeure to try to introduce a motion that I am prevented from introducing enables me to reflect on some of the ideas that have been put before the House. Before I went to university I was brought up in the north-west, where everyone used the Co-operative funeral service. It has not been properly explained why, in this world which the Opposition regard as such a rip-off, the Co-operative Society could not make enough profits and has backed out of the funeral industry. The hon. Member for Leigh seemed to imply that he wanted to return to the highly regulated world that socialists always want, in which local authorities are
804
allowed to run funeral services. However, that would only compound the problem that I was trying to identify in my motion—the wastefulness and misuse of local authority power——
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has just walked into the Chamber, having been absent for long periods of the debate. He has tabled a second motion which we are unlikely to reach, and is deliberately trying to introduce the subject of that motion into this debate. Is that not contempt of the House?
Dr. Hampson: I apologise for introducing extraneous matters, but they were perfectly relevant.
The hon. Member for Leigh said that he regretted that local authorities did not have the powers to undertake funeral services. It seemed perfectly relevant, therefore, to say that it would be a wasteful exercise on the part of local authorities. We all know that the Opposition wish to prevent me from introducing my motion.
Mr. George Foulkes rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It would be as well if we got on with the debate.
Mr. Knapman: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West has every right to be absent from the Chamber because he always ensures that his speeches—in this case, a speech that should have been heard by the House—are full of interest and carefully researched. Therefore, I am not surprised that he was unable to be present for the whole of this debate.
With his usual understanding of the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West asked the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Leigh an hour and 10 minutes ago: if the funeral industry is such a licence to print money, why did the Co-operative Wholesale Society sell its interest in it?
Mr. Cunliffe rose——
Mr. Foulkes rose——
Mr. Knapman: I asked the hon. Member for Leigh an hour and 10 minutes ago why that should be so——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Knapman: I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Leigh, who introduced the subject into the debate.
Mr. Cunliffe: The explanation is simple and well known to the House. The Co-op owned more than the Monopolies and Mergers Commission criteria. It had 25 per cent. of the industry and was made to get rid of the House of Fraser, which Hodgson Holdings PHK—Kenyan Securities—bought immediately afterwards. It then added to that to create another monopoly, so it is swings and roundabouts—robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Knapman: I am—not unusually—slightly confused. Surely the Co-operative Wholesale Society did not have to sell its entire interest in the industry. Is the hon.

805
Gentleman saying that it did? He spent an hour and 20 minutes saying how wonderfully profitable the funeral industry is.
Mr. Cunliffe: I am trying to give the facts. I said that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was allowed to retain 25 per cent. of the industry. In this case, the surplus was the House of Fraser, which was immediately snapped up by another big company in the industry, the name of which I have already given.
Mr. Knapman: If the Co-operative Wholesale Society was allowed to keep 25 per cent., I presume that the whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument was against that society.
Mr. Foulkes: I can confirm that a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report obliged the CWS to divest itself of that power. Had the hon. Gentleman speeded up his speech and not allowed the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to intervene, I might have had an opportunity to explain, as a Co-op Member, the position of the Co-op funeral services.
Mr. Knapman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which suggested that the Co-operative Wholesale Society should not have more than 25 per cent. of that market.
In the course of the Adjournment debate on 6 February 1989, my hon. Friend the then Minister said:
"The fact that during the past few years a number of small independent funeral directors' firms have been taken over—the hon. Gentleman stressed that development—is perhaps an indication that profit margins in some parts of the industry are low."
That is a far cry from the hon. Gentleman's argument. My hon. Friend the Minister concluded by saying:
"It is going too far to say that the market is in any way overwhelmed or dominated by that small number of companies. I am confident that the Director General of Fair Trading will remain alert to what is happening in the market and be ready to take action if and when the need arises."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 780.]
The Director General of Fair Trading already has those powers. Although I like the first line and a half or the motion, I do not think much of the quangos suggested in the remainder. The Director General of Fair Trading has discretionary powers to refer abuses of monopoly and anti-competitive practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that has happened.
It may be slightly ironic that the Commission investigated the Co-operative Wholesale Society's acquisition of the Scottish funeral businesses of House of Fraser plc in 1987 but, in view of what has been said, I had better not rake that up again.
The hon. Gentleman now has not one—that is the number of cases suggested in the 1989 Adjournment debate—but two causes of complaint. Some 90,000 people live in my constituency and I reckon that they will live for more than 70 years. I must admit that I sometimes speculate idly on whether the increased lifespan is because the national health service is so much more efficient than it used to be. The hon. Gentleman seems not to want to pay the Government that compliment—he apparently thinks that the increased lifespan is because people eat muesli for breakfast—but the average lifespan is certainly going up considerably.
Nevertheless, of that 90,000, every year some 1.200 families suffer bereavement and, if my arithmetic is
806
correct, in the past four years that I have represented Stroud, there have been some 5,000 deaths in my constituency. During that time, I have received no letters of complaint from those 5,000 families about the charges or activities of funeral directors. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends have received letters from their constituents complaining about that subject. It does not seem to be very much of a problem.
In 1989, the National Association of Funeral Directors published an Office of Fair Trading survey showing factors such as the amount paid compared with the expected cost of a funeral and knowledge of funeral costs. Some 75 per cent. of those questioned paid exactly what they expected to pay or less. A further 21 per cent. did not know—which I suppose means that the people did not reply.
In my postbag I receive many letters about whales, tropical forests, battery hens and nearly every other subject, but I have never received a letter about undertakers' charges. That is a credit to the industry, because funeral directors conduct their business at a time of considerable anxiety, not to say trauma, and it would be easy for them to upset customers if they did not provide a good service.
The other part of the hon. Gentleman's speech related essentially to whether there is sufficient quality of service and, if not, what should be done about it—whether we should have quangos and intervention. There have been surveys on this subject. In 1987, there was a survey of funeral arrangements. It was published in 1989, although whether before or after the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Leigh, I am not sure. It stated clearly that, of the 600,000-plus funerals in Britain every year, about 200 provoked complaints to trading standards officers. The survey showed that 72 per cent. were very satisfied, 25 per cent. were satisfied, 2 per cent. were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and only 1 per cent. were dissatisfied with the industry's activities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those statistics, as he did not mention them in his speech, although he had ample opportunity to do so. Using a massive sledgehammer to crack a nut, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is not justified.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, had much to do with the privatisation of the water industry. I was always struck by his comment that one should have competition where that is possible and regulation where it is not. There is still considerable competition within the industry. One accepts that where there is not fair competition there should be regulation, but that should not mean legislation—there is already a considerable amount of legislation.
The hon. Member for Leigh could also have quoted from the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie. The hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about Sir Gordon's views on the subject, but he has considerable responsibilities for it. Sir Gordon Borrie said:
"People do not arrange funerals often enough to acquire the background knowledge which guides them when they make other major purchases, and they may be in no state of mind to make best use of such knowledge as they have. They do not approach the task of arranging a funeral as they would an ordinary consumer transaction, comparing the prices and services on offer and taking time to come to a decision."
That is perfectly fair, and I think that Opposition Members would certainly agree with it.

807
Sir Gordon Borrie said that, for those reasons, the Office of Fair Trading had supported consumer protection in the form of the code of practice of the National Association of Funeral Directors. The hon. Member for Leigh said that he was speaking voluntarily and thought that I might be speaking compulsorily. I have no interest to declare in the way that he might have been suggesting.
Sir Gordon Borrie continued:
"I still support the code but I am disturbed by the evidence that it is not being adequately followed."
That is the crux of the matter. I am sure that the House would agree with that. Sir Gordon continued:
"I am calling upon the Association to make a swift and positive response to the survey's findings. Otherwise I may have to consider what other options—such as an order under the Prices Act 1974 requiring the disclosure of prices—are available."
That is the important point, because I understand that, under the code of conduct, all prices should be made available, but in only 40 per cent. of cases was that proving to be the case. I think that all hon. Members will agree that that is not right and that the code of practice should be enforced. However, we surely do not need the huge, bureaucratic minefield into which the hon. Member for Leigh seeks to lead us in order to achieve that.
Who is to pay for all this? The hon. Member for Leigh had many lines about quangos and so on, but who will pay for the system? Will we hear the traditional Labour response, "Let the taxpayer pay," because nobody knows quite where the money goes? Or will it be the consumer who pays, by which I mean the executors of the deceased? If consumers are to pay, the hon. Gentleman's arrangement—despite all his talk about reducing the cost of funerals generally—will increase costs. That is the history of over-regulation throughout the ages.
I beg the House not to support the hon. Gentleman. We have an efficient and thriving industry. Certainly, if there are things wrong with it, the Office of Fair Trading must look into them, but we should not create an over-regulated, bureaucratic quagmire. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the motion.
6.17 pm
Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) made a magnificent, superb speech, based on his practical experience. He did the House a favour in moving the motion. He is simply asking that undertakers should give not only a menu but a menu with prices. What is wrong with that? As my hon. Friend said, the issue stems from the Prices Act 1974, which provided that pubs must display the prices of what they sell. Until 1974, they never did. If someone went into a pub, he did not know how much a pint of beer cost, and had to ask. The Labour Government said that all pubs and restaurants should display their prices on the wall. My hon. Friend is saying that the same should apply to undertakers. What is wrong with that?
People buy this product—if one may call it that—or service once or twice in their life. They are not experts and cannot shop around. There is no way that they will have time, within two or three days, to ring the undertakers or go through Yellow Pages to see how much is charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh read out a list of disbursements: £60 for body removal, £25 for minister's fees, £100 for gravediggers' fees, up to £90 for the
808
cremation, £42 for medical certificates, £12 for the organist, £7 for heating the church and £100 for the flowers. Those are all included in the basic cost. People do not know the cost unless they ask, or are told after the funeral, and then the bill comes as a massive shock to poor people who are not versed in such matters.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading shows that, in Brighton, the average cost of a funeral can be £1,000, whereas in Oldham it is only £400. Why should there be such a difference for the same basic service in different parts of the country? The national average cost is £530, whereas it costs £1,000 in Brighton. I do not know what it costs in Stroud—I should like to know. It is totally wrong that people should have to pay such prices for what is basically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh described it, an MFI coffin used at the crematoriums, and pay perhaps £150 or £200 for something with a factory price of about £25. Enormous profits have been made in the industry. It is time that the Office of Fair Trading not merely produced a report but acted on it.
As my hon. Friend said, for many years in this country we had a mass of small firms trading on their good will and conducting perhaps 200 funerals a year—as few as four or five a week. That was why it was cost-inefficient. Small firms had to pay a lot for hearses, cars and embalming, and for their premises, but they would do perhaps only two hours work a day. When it was virtually a cottage industry, no one could reap an adequate return unless there were many deaths.
Then in came organisations such as Hodgson Holdings and took over the small businesses. Unlike firms such as Prontaprint and Sketchley the cleaners, such organisations do not offer franchises under their own name. They simply buy the old name. Then, instead of a car being used for two hours a day, it is used all day at five or six different premises. That makes the business much more efficient and profitable, but nobody knows that all these "small firms" are governed by the same company. At least the Co-op puts its name above its shops. When people go to the Co-op they know who owns it, but they think that the other firms are the same little family firms that buried their grandfathers. They are not. Charges can go up by £100 in six months because a firm has been taken over without anyone knowing.
I am sorry that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is to reply to this debate. The Department of Social Security should reply. It has a great deal to answer for because it has not educated pensioners or families about what to do in these circumstances. The reports that have been mentioned are usually in the quality papers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. The Sun and the Daily Mirror rarely investigate such matters. As people get older and become pensioners—probably even by the time they reach 50—they would probably be happy to receive Government leaflets giving advice about what to watch for and what questions to ask.
I have with me a letter which I received today from an elderly lady in Worksop, in my constituency. Her brother, who is 79 years of age, has had a stroke. Her sister is 83. None of them has been married, and they are not insured for funeral expenses. They are so confused that they cannot ask how to claim help, despite being on income support. The lady is a widow. Her husband was a miner for 46 years and served for six years in the war. Recently, the mining industry has been offering retired people lump sums to give up their coal allowances. People were warned

809
not to accept, because doing so would put them above the limit for benefits. That woman has taken £2,000 and given up her coal for the rest of her life, thinking that she has a nice little nest egg—but now she does not qualify for the grant from the DSS because she has £2,000 in the bank. Her husband worked digging coal for 46 years for that money, and a big chunk of it will go to pay funeral expenses. The lump sum also stops people qualifying for cold weather payments from the DSS.
The Minister will talk about free trade and the market economy. He will say that he will not interfere and set up a bureaucracy. But the Labour Government simply ordered pubs to put their prices on the wall. All we need is a similar measure under the same Act saying that undertakers have to do the same and display a price list with details of charges. People would have the right to see a list of prices, and could go to two or three undertakers collecting details of prices—perhaps in the form of leaflets. That is all that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh is asking for. It would be a great service to many hard-up pensioners if such details were given in advice leaflets at every DSS office.
The industry is being taken over by firms that should operate on a franchise basis, and a great deal of profit is being made out of innocent people in their time of grief. It is up to the Government to protect pensioners and to act on behalf of consumers as well as on behalf of the free market.
6.24 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I wish that I could follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) with the same verve and eloquence. He is a Sheffield Wednesday supporter——
Mr. Ashton: Director.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is a director; I must not denigrate him. Clearly, he is buoyed up by the recent victory. I support Manchester United, as well as Heart of Midlothian, so I feel that a debate on funerals is appropriate for my sombre contribution.
There may be other reasons why people do not approach the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) with complaints. As joint chairman, with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), of the all-party pensioners group, I know that many members of that group have raised that important issue, and that we have had meetings with the National Association of Funeral Directors. Moreover, once a funeral is over, people may feel that it is not appropriate to write a letter of complaint to a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Stroud should not judge by his postbag. I assure him that the all-party pensioners group has received representations, which it has taken up with the National Association of Funeral Directors.
I used to work with Age Concern Scotland before I entered the House. That organisation, too, was worried about the matter and had received a number of complaints. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been in the House for a long time, and will be able to confirm that old people and the relatives of people who have died are in a vulnerable position. They cannot haggle about prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has said, at such a difficult time people cannot negotiate for the
810
best price. They cannot necessarily exercise the same judgment as they would when making another kind of purchase.
I speak as a Co-op-sponsored Member of Parliament. I freely declare my interest, which is on the Register of Members' Interests. Anyone who cares to read the record knows about that interest. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) here tonight. He, too, is sponsored by the Co-op and I know that he will associate himself with what I say.
The Co-op is one of the biggest undertakers in the country, if not the biggest, but that statement masks the fact that it is not a monolithic organisation. There is much misunderstanding about the structure of the Co-op movement. There is local control and much sympathetic understanding of the needs of consumers, especially elderly and, in this case, bereaved people.
About 30 of the 80 local Co-operative societies in the United Kingdom provide funeral services. The biggest provider is the CWS—the Co-operative Wholesale Society —which is very strong in Scotland and south Wales. It supplies funeral materials to other societies and runs coffin-making works in Manchester and Glasgow. There is also the CRS—Co-operative Retail Services—the biggest Co-operative funeral business in England. All the societies combine to offer a funeral pre-payment bond, which enables people to make provision for their funerals.
That is one example of the way in which the Co-operative movement not only sees people as customers but aims to provide them with a service. It thinks not in terms of profit but of providing a service to the members of the Co-operative movement. Similarly, the Co-operative college has helped the launch of the Bereavement Trust, which brings together social work professionals and funeral staff, who all help and counsel the bereaved.
The main worry of the Co-operative movement is the unlimited access to the profession. Cowboy operators are free to lower standards and to charge whatever prices they like. That emphasises what my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said about the transparency of prices. The existence of cowboy operators is especially regrettable in a service in which reliability, sensitivity and integrity are expected by the public, as the families using the service may be unable or unwilling to exercise rigorous consumer choice. The Co-op therefore feels that more consumer protection is needed. The only way of achieving that is through a registration system that would allow only trained and reputable people and companies to offer this service. The industry would be represented on the registration council that the Co-op movement proposes. Rightly, there would be consumer and independent representatives.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading on the funeral industry found many causes for concern similar to those I have outlined which worry the Co-op. The OFT, with the National Association of Funeral Directors, has developed a voluntary code of conduct. Although the good faith of the association is not in doubt, many Co-op funeral departments are active members of the local NAFD branch but are worried that voluntary self-regulation will not work. The association will find it difficult to discipline or expel members who provide its subscription income. As the House would expect, many of the worst offenders—those who engage in bad practice and charge high prices —are not members of the association. Accordingly, they

811
are beyond the theoretical scope of the code. We want to give the association a fair wind, but we are sceptical about its success.
The Co-operative movement would like to see introduced a Bill—it has discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh because of his concern—that would go much further than the NAFD code in many respects. The main difference is that the movement believes that the protection of consumers must have the backing of us all.
The Government could help reputable funeral businesses to keep down their prices by introducing the zero-rating of VAT for all funeral services. At present, most funeral costs are exempt from VAT, which means that businesses cannot reclaim the VAT that is paid on their inputs. The Government are negotiating with the European Community on the harmonisation of VAT sales in the single market, and we support the progress that has been made now that the Community has accepted the principle of zero rating for social goods such as food.
We believe that funerals should be included in the list. It is a service that has to be used by everyone eventually. It is not a purchase that can be delayed or forgone, however much we might like it to be. Funeral arrangements take place at a time of financial uncertainty, and possibly financial stringency for those who have to pay. The increase in the rate of VAT that was announced in the Budget makes it all the more necessary to move to positive zero rating for funerals. I hope that the Minister will give a specific and positive answer to the suggestion that zero rating should be adopted.
We in the Cooperative movement are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh for all the work that he has done. We are pleased that he succeeded in obtaining a place in the ballot and thus was able to initiate a debate on the funeral business. We hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to a matter of great concern for the Co-operative movement and for those of us who are members of the all-party pensioners group, which has discussed these matters on several occasions and on whose behalf I speak this evening. I hope that the Minister will recognise and respond to the eloquence of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh.
6.32 pm
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for the force of the arguments that he deployed, for his well-informed contribution and for the long-term interest that he has taken in the subject, which means that he is one of the premier spokespersons on the funeral business in this place. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for his informed contribution to the debate. Similarly, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
We are used to death in the House. One took place fairly recently when a political career was killed off during the autumn as the result of a murder most foul and treacherous. There is more than a whiff of political morbidity coming from No. 10 Downing street at present. More than 600,000 deaths occur in Britain each year, and almost all require the services of a funeral director. The debate that we have today is nothing new. Funerals have
812
been seen as a burden on the poor for more than a century, and for more than 100 years people have used friendly societies, burial societies and industrial assurance companies to help them to meet the cost of funerals.
The majority of people working in the funeral business are well trained. They are competent, compassionate and professional. They take a pride in their work, which has an honourable and well-documented history going back over 3,000 years. It is right that they should be rewarded for their service. I welcome the acknowlegement of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that he has witnessed an improvement in the performance of the trade. There are, however, no grounds for complacency.
In April 1976, the Labour Government's Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asked the Price Commission to report on funeral charges and associated charges such as the cost of coffins, burials, cremations and the like. The commission's findings were that most people were not given written estimates. Only 70 per cent. were given oral estimates. Action was taken to introduce improvements and a code was produced in 1979. It is sad that, in the 1980s, the quality of information and service seemed to slip back in some sectors.
The 1979 code contained six simple provisions. It provided that practitioners in undertakers' businesses should keep their dealings with their clients confidential and that they should advise them on certification, registration of death and associated matters. The code stated that all clients should be given full information about the services offered and that they should be handed a price list or a leaflet setting out prices. It was set out in the code that those who offer funeral services should offer a basic, simple funeral if that was requested and required.
The code included the provision that clients should be given a written estimate to cover the charges and that the charges should not go beyond that estimate. It was stated that fair prices should be detailed and that clients should be provided with detailed accounts. These were simple recommendations. It is amazing that, after 12 years, not all the recommendations have been adopted by all practitioners in the funeral business.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading, which was published in July 1989, arose from complaints about non-compliance with the code and other matters that had been made by the general public. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, costs increased by nearly 30 per cent. between 1975 and 1989. Apparently the cost of coffins and the level of professional charges increased beyond the rate of inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh cited the example of the price of a £19 coffin increasing by as much as 1,000 per cent. Another, more luxurious, coffin—a coffin that will be requested by some—with a wholesale price of £60 increased to £350. My hon. Friend gave examples of handles costing up to £8 subsequently being charged at £42. He spoke of plastic nameplates increasing in price from 69p to £65. We support his contention that basic prices have increased and that the added value on basic products is considerably less than the price eventually charged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has given a new meaning to the letter RIP—not rest in peace but rip off, as prices soar. The report of the Office of Fair Trading focused on the code of practice of the NAFD, the key requirements of which were not being observed by members of the profession. The shortcomings were detailed. They included a failure to provide price lists, a

813
failure to supply written estimates to clients, and a deep-seated reluctance to provide all the details of a modest and basic funeral.
Last year, the NAFD published in its trade magazine the results of its own random inspections to check whether its members were complying with the code. Up to a year after the report of the OFT, half the inspections revealed that funeral directors were still failing to fulfil the code's requirements of price lists and written estimate forms.
Labour makes five key demands. The funeral code must be applied to all funeral directors, it must extend to cover pricing, and every customer and potential customer must be given a detailed breakdown of funeral costs. It is not satisfactory that a grieving relative should have to organise a funeral after someone has passed on. It is just as important that everyone should be able to make inquiries, irrespective of whether they require a funeral today, tomorrow or sometime in the future and get a price list from every funeral director.
That brings me to the excellent point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley about the registration and regulation of all practitioners. By simply registering practitioners, we would have an additional check that the best codes of practice and the highest professional standards were being adhered to. That additional check is necessary, and should be applied to all funeral directors.
We desire to drive out the bad practices, albeit in a small minority, which are prejudicing the standards of the best practitioners in the industry. We must ensure that a price-marking order is drafted in line with section 4 of the Prices Act 1974, to compel all funeral directors to display prices and to provide full itemised costs for all potential customers. It may not be necessary to enforce that measure, but the fact that it would be hanging over the tiny minority of unscrupulous practitioners would be a threat.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I should be most interested to know how many complaints the hon. Gentleman has had from his constituents about the affairs of funeral directors. Can he tell the House who would pay for the panoply of regulation he suggests, which is so typical of socialism?
Mr. Griffiths: We know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in speaking for the No Turning Back group. He acknowledges that freely, and the Minister also nods his assent. The hon. Gentleman is leaving the Minister short of time to wind up.
The facts are quite simple. The public is demanding regulation of the trade. I have a number of excellent practitioners of funeral services working with the Co-op and in the private sector in my constituency and I would not seek to malign them. I have received only one complaint in the past six months, but it was a serious complaint at a time when the individual concerned was in a great deal of emotional distress. My constituents will not welcome the account of today's proceedings and the barracking from Conservative Members. If I am pressed to name the individual who complained, I shall do so, having asked that person for permission.
I have been a Member of Parliament since 1987 since when I have received several complaints. Every Member of Parliament will be aware of problems in the funeral industry. It would be surprising and, frankly, astonishing if, given that there are 600,000 funerals each year every
814
hon. Member were not aware of one or two complaints. It is perhaps a tribute to Opposition Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that their constituents are able to make their complaints known to them. I am not surprised that Conservative Members are shaking their heads and saying that they have no complaints.
Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had considered the matter so important, I am sure that he would have raised it in his speech.
We backed the Director General of Fair Trading when he spelled out what must be done. More formal intervention may well be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh suggested that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I shall certainly welcome the Minister's response to that suggestion, as I do not believe that it can be ruled out.
I hope that the Minister will investigate the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh gave the House about bids by private firms for municipal funeral services. It cannot be right that a bid of £350 a funeral for a council contract is being made by a company charging its customers double that in the private sector. Surely the Minister is not satisfied to let matters rest there. Surely he must investigate the unjustified price increases in identical funeral in less than month. More than £100 more is being charged for the same funeral.
In short, we need a more positive approach from the Government backing the Office of Fair Trading, supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and other hon. Members in their efforts to make the industry more accountable, and, most important of all, strengthening the rights of the relatives and friends of the 5 million United Kingdom citizens whose deaths will necessitate funerals in the next decade. We want the Minister to respond positively to those questions.
6.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has chosen a subject for debate which is of interest to all hon. Members. I am sure that the House will have listened with great interest to his comprehensive speech. I am sure that every one of us has had experience of losing loved ones. Often the bereaved feel vulnerable and unable to cope with the practical problems associated with death. They look for support and help and for someone to take over the responsibility of sorting out details and making arrangements.
The hon. Member for Leigh quoted Gladstone, and we all agree that how we treat our bereaved is a measure of the tender spirit of the land. The majority find the help and support from their funeral director adequate. Despite some of the comments made today, we should not forget that there is no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the industry. The report by the Director General of Fair Trading in January 1989 produced no such evidence.
As we have heard today, some 650,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom. Most of the associated funerals are arranged by funeral directors. In 1986, the last full year in which the Office of Fair Trading separately recorded complaints about funerals, there were only 126 complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr.

815
Knapman) said that he had received no complaints from his constituents, although I accept that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) put a different interpretation on why there had been so few complaints.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in eight years a Member of Parliament, I have not had one complaint from my constituents? I can tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that I have full surgeries. Sellmans, Stacey and John Short and Son in my constituency provide a splendid service, as I am sure the Co-op does—otherwise, I would have received complaints. Is my hon. Friend aware that companies such as John Short and Son produce a full price list, as the hon. Member for Leigh requested? Is it not correct to say that the Opposition want another panoply of controls for which the customer will ultimately pay?
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point most effectively. I shall take up one of the points he made.
Since becoming the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, I have received only a handful of complaints about the quality of service provided by funeral directors. I do not dismiss the concerns of those involved in the particular cases, but I urge hon. Members to keep the issue in perspective, as I am sure the hon. Member for Leigh would wish.
We are considering an industry with a long tradition of service to the community. The face of the industry is changing in a number of ways. The hon. Member has referred to increased concentration. There have been changes of ownership and a number of small independent firms have disappeared. People are more likely to find that their local undertaker is part of a group rather than an independent. We should not assume that this is necessarily a change for the worse. There have been changes in society, too. Most people no longer expect their local funeral director to be someone they know—they just hope to receive an efficient service at a reasonable cost carried out with sensitivity to their wishes and feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) raised that point in an intervention.
I do not think that we should expect the funeral industry to look today as it did 20, or even 10, years ago. Equally, we should not jump to the conclusion that changes in its structure mean that excessive profits are being made and that people are being ripped off.
Of course, concern about the cost of funerals is not new. Since the 19th century, organisations such as friendly societies, burial societies and industrial assurance companies have made payments to their members to cover the costs of funerals. In 1949, the then Government introduced a death grant of £20 to cover the necessary expenses of a decent funeral. In 1976, widespread concern about the cost of funerals led the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to ask the Price Commission to report on funeral charges and associated charges, including the prices of coffins, burial and cremation. It will be of interest to hon. Members that the commission concluded that, although there was scope for some reduction in funeral charges, profits were not generally excessive. Nevertheless, the commission made the following important observation:
816
"In the relationship between funeral director and client the former has a marked psychological and commercial advantage, so that the balance of bargaining power is tilted in his favour"—>
a point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.Ashton) in a characteristically powerful speech.
"Owing to the distress which usually accompanies a bereavement, those who seek the funeral director's services rarely obtain more than one estimate. For the same reason, the funeral director is able, if he wishes, to influence the relative degree of elaboration of the funeral. We have, however, been assured that this is the exception rather than the rule."
The commission was therefore concerned that the normal forces of competition did not work effectively in this industry because of the special circumstances surrounding services associated with death. To shift the balance more in favour of the client, and to try and encourage clients to make informed choices, the commission recommended that funeral directors should give clients a written estimate, and that a basic simple funeral should be made available, and its price displayed in a prominent position.
The Director General of Fair Trading was asked by the Government to negotiate a code of practice with the National Association of Funeral Directors to cover those points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, that code of practice exists today. I do not think that I need go into great detail about it, as it was read out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
Let me put this matter in perspective. The report of the Office of Fair Trading pointed out some significant factors that need to be borne in mind in considering the cost of a funeral. First, the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included on his bill, such as the cost of the burial plot, the cost of providing an organist, and the cemetery or crematorium fees. Secondly, the funeral director's own costs, such as those incurred in the provision of staff, vehicles and embalming equipment, are also to some extent outside his control and may have risen at a rate above the rate of inflation.
At this stage, I should say a bit more about costs. People tend to judge the amount of work involved in arranging a funeral by the amount of time they actually see spent—the visit to their home by the funeral director, and the work that he does at the funeral itself. Clearly, a lot more work is involved. I should not like to hazard an estimate of how much, although I know that the hon. Member for Leigh has his own views on the subject, and we listened with some interest to those views. It is clear that, when the time factor is taken into consideration, along with the industry's overheads, which reflect large items of capital expenditure, a funeral is never going to be cheap.
That point was clearly brought out in the report of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is important to remind the House that Sir Gordon did not claim that funeral directors were overcharging or making excessive profits. Comments made in the Director General's report have been quoted out of context, sometimes giving the impression that Sir Gordon took a view on the question of profits. That is not correct. Indeed, he had no basis on which to take a view, as he had not collected any information about funeral directors' costs and margins.
However, he did emphasise that the cost of a funeral is substantial. He recognised that the bereaved sometimes find the final sum larger than they expected. That is why he recommended improvements in the code of conduct of the National Association of Funeral Directors, to provide

817
more information about prices and about the itemisation of estimates and bills. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said about itemisation, and I shall certainly give the matter consideration.
The funeral directors' association also called for better publicity for the option of a basic "no frills" funeral. I have noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about VAT. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment at this stage, but I will give the matter some thought.
I shall deal further with the question of overheads when I comment in more detail on competition in the industry. In the meantime, I want to return to the report of the Office of Fair Trading. The Director General concluded that members of the public needed more information about the price of funerals, including more comparative information, to encourage the bereaved to make an informed choice. He wanted, among other things. to see more publicity for the basis funeral and better itemisation of individual charges in estimates and accounts. I repeat that I shall consider carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on the question of itemisation.
I am afraid that the National Association of Funeral Directors was not totally in agreement with the report of the Office of Fair Trading, and there would be no point in pretending that it endorsed the conclusion drawn by the OFT from the survey. But it did accept that changes in the code of practice were necessary. Accordingly, revisions were made, and a new code promulgated. I shall not go into that code in great detail, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South did the House the service of reading out its main points. It is an extensive code, the purpose of which is to reassure the public. For instance, it makes absolutely clear the need to observe the confidence of every client, to render good service at all times, to ensure that advertising is in good taste, to provide clients and the general public with full and fair information, to give a written estimate of all funeral charges, and to come up with an itemised account. I should like to deal with those matters in more detail, but unfortunately time does not permit.
I do not think that legislation to regulate the funeral industry is either necessary or desirable. In this respect, I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It is not my purpose to encourage people to go round complaining about the service that they have received. However, there is no substitute for the informed consumer's taking considered decisions in his own interests. I accept that clients of funeral directors may not have at the top of their list, or in the forefront of their minds, the need to make an informed choice, but legislation will not change that. Ultimately, it must be for the individual to judge whether he has received good service. If he feels that the National Association of Funeral Directors has put in place a system of conciliation and arbitration is of the utmost importance, and I am glad of this opportunity to give publicity to that valuable initiative.
There have been changes in the industry. We have heard about them in this debate, particlarly from the hon. Member for Leigh. However, the Co-op remains dominant. In this respect, the whole House is grateful for the particular expertise that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley brings to the subject. In addition, there are still a large number of independent funeral directors.
The funeral industry is not the first in which small, independent firms have experienced difficulties. The fact
818
that a number have sold out to groups does not necessarily reflect predatory behaviour on the part of the latter. A number of factors, including increased competition, may have contributed to the changes in the industry. There are signs of more active marketing of different products—for instance, the range of packages to enable one to meet the cost of a future funeral by regular payments. I accept, of course, that the hon. Member for Leigh does not give much credence to these packages. Such arrangements are not new in themselves, but their development in the upper part of the market are.
There were some remarks about profits. It has been claimed that some funeral directors are making huge profits. On this point, other hon. Members, like me, will have read the report of the Great Southern Group's results for 1990. The group, which is quoted in the unlisted securities market, suffered a 9 per cent. downturn in pre-tax profits. The setback occurred despite an overall gain in market share. I hope that this reference to the profits of the Great Southern Group shows that there is another side to the story.
Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister concede that the You Care group made a year's profit of £500,000 on a turnover of £2·5 million? Does that not reflect a balance? The Minister talks about competitiveness. Surely this is a classic example of how one company can out-compete another?
Mr. Leigh: I cannot comment on the profits to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I repeat that we must put the industry in perspective.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh, which lasted more than an hour and 20 minutes. I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to intimate that the industry's profits are generally excessive. I do not think that that is in fact the case. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. The insistence of the Director General of Fair Trading on the inclusion of stricter requirements on transparency of information in the code of the National Association of Funeral Directors will also contribute to the increasing competition to which I have referred.
I will say more about the role of information in encouraging consumer choice, which is not straightforward in relation to funerals. As a general policy, the Government strongly hold the view that one of the keys to increased competition, and therefore to lower prices and more efficient services, is a well-informed consumer. That does not mean simply the provision of more information. Consumers need clear information, presented in a way that is easy to analyse and to compare—and at the right time.
Many people do not consider shopping around for a funeral. Some are too distressed, while others regard it as inappropriate, or even disrespectful, to do so. Instead, they want the funeral director to take the arrangements off their hands. Often, they do not think to ask the sort of questions that they would consider natural when contracting any other kind of service.
One might argue that that gives the funeral director an opportunity to take advantage of the consumer. Equally, the director may be faced with the problem of deciding the extent to which he should bother the bereaved with details——
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill
    New clause 1

      PURCHASE ETC. OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY BLIGHT
      ' .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, make regulations with respect to the action to be taken by the Corporation for alleviating cases of hardship suffered as a result of property being blighted by subsidence damage or the possibility of such damage.
      (2) The action which may be required by the regulations is—

      (a) the purchase of any blighted property at a price equivalent to its unblighted value; or

      (b) the payment of an amount equivalent to the difference between the value of any such property and its unblighted value.

      (3) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

      (a) the making of claims under the regulations and the descriptions of persons who may make them;

      (b) the descriptions of property in respect of which such claims may be made and the circumstances in which such property is to be regarded as blighted for the purposes of the regulations;

      (c) the circumstances in which action is or is not required to be taken (including the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as suffering hardship);

      (d) the determination of the value or unblighted value of any blighted property.

      (4) In this section "unblighted value", in relation to any blighted property, means the value which it would have if it were not blighted.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) to the amendment in subsection (2), at end insert—
      '(c) the right of owners who have received notices under Clause 44, subsections (4) and (6) to compel the Corporation to purchase blighted property.'.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This is the first of a number of new clauses and amendments that have been tabled to meet Government commmitments made in Committee. New clause 1 deals with blight.
      In order to prevent hardship, British Coal will consider buying houses damaged by subsidence, or in some cases houses that are in imminent danger of being so damaged. Over the past three years, British Coal has bought more than 80 houses, to avoid hardship being caused.
      The 1984 report of the Waddilove committee considered British Coal's policy to be "wholly reasonable", and no evidence was presented in Committee to suggest that that conclusion no longer holds good. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that many hon. Members would prefer the arrangements to be placed on a statutory basis, and the new clause will enable the Secretary of State for Energy to make new regulations specifying actions to
      820
      be taken by the corporation to alleviate hardship caused as a result of property being blighted by subsidence damage or the possibility of it.
      In the avoidance of hardship section of the Brown Book, British Coal states that it will consider making payments to avoid hardship in a number of circumstances. The first is where the owner of a damaged house must sell if for a good reason—for example, because he has found work in another district—and the house cannot be sold at its former, undamaged value. The corporation will consider buying the house at its undamaged value or making up the difference between that and the sale price. In exceptional circumstances, the corporation will do the same if the house is not damaged, but there is a strong and imminent possibility that it will be damaged.
      Those arrangements appear to work well and it is not the Government's intention to introduce regulations at this stage. If it becomes clear that those arrangements are not operating fairly, or do not go far enough in avoiding hardship, the Government will have the power to make regulations to improve matters.
      I hope that new clause 1 meets with the approval of the House. I am aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has tabled an amendment, to which I shall respond if he has a chance to present his case.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I do not mean to be churlish when I say that, although I welcome the Minister's response to representations made from both sides of the Committee, new clause 1 falls short of our expectations. It is another example of Ministers seeking to introduce a "maybe" clause: an enabling measure that they might use, one day, to introduce regulations to alleviate the hardship suffered by householders whose homes are blighted.
      A constant theme of debates in Committee was that a balance had to be struck between discretion and regulations of the kind proposed by the Minister and the belief of many of us that the Bill should establish rights. The Minister introduced the new clause in a downbeat way, when he could have said, "I am trying to break new ground." Instead, he told the House that the Government may introduce regulations at some time in the future that will take British Coal's present policies a bit further.
      We pressed hard on Second Reading and in Committee for recognition of the blight caused by mining subsidence because we do not agree that British Coal should be in a position to be judge and jury in hardship cases and the only authority to exercise discretion. While no one wants to see the extensive acquisition of blighted properties, the fact that British Coal purchased only 80 homes over the past three years reveals the marginal way in which it exercises its discretionary power. It is disturbing to hear the Minister say that he thinks that British Coal is doing a good job in that respect.
      I shall cite constituency cases that have come to my attention even since the Committee stage, which illustrates why new clause 1 should go further than it does. The Minister said that the Government have adopted the Brown Book's definition of hardship in relation to blight. In one case with which I am familiar, Mr. A found a purchaser for his property at an agreed price, but the announcement of subsidence in Edwardsville, in the vicinity of that property, caused the sale to be aborted.

      821
      Mr. A has spent 12 months trying to sell his property, even at a reduced price, as part of his divorce settlement, in order that his divorce proceedings may be finalised. Does the Minister consider that such a case constitutes a form of hardship and is one in which British Coal should exercise its discretionary purchasing powers? In fact, British Coal refused to do so.
      The individual concerned is not a young man, but, whatever the age of the person concerned, if British Coal does not consider that case as one not involving hardship, what is its definition of hardship? The Minister gave as an example a person moving to find work in another district. That may soon be common in Edwardsville, in my constituency, because its deep navigation pit was closed on Good Friday, and a number of miners who worked there are thinking about going on the road to Selby Beach, to become mining gipsies once again.
      There are a number of other examples of the sort that I have just given the Minister, where British Coal is exercising its discretion on hardship in a minimalist fashion.
      The new clause talks of
      "the circumstances in which action is or is not required to be taken (including the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as suffering hardship)".
      Will the Minister tell us whether the case that I mentioned—the purchase of a blighted property to resolve divorce proceedings—constitutes a case of hardship which therefore should be subject to the blight provisions?
      Mr. Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend also point out to the Minister that the new clause could be interpreted by British Coal as applying only to physical damage to a property? What about area blight because of mining subsidence? In some cases people cannot buy a house or raise the mortgage to buy one, because of blight caused by subsidence damage.
      Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend about blight—it is not merely related to physical damage to a property or the imminence of such damage. Properties in the vicinity of subsidence are automatically blighted and are therefore difficult to sell. That is why I tabled my amendment to the new clause, because it tries to tackle some of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions.
      My amendment seeks to do one thing that the new clause does not do—to establish a right for people whose property is blighted. What sort of right should we establish? I have reached what I thought was a reasonable compromise between the discretionary provision provided by the Minister and my belief that we should establish the principle of a right for householders to serve a blight notice. My compromise seeks to resolve the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) mentioned.
      My amendment seeks to tie blight provisions to the serving of notices under clause 44(4). I suggested it initially in Committee. I have mulled the matter over and believe that the case for such action is now even stronger. I do not go as far as to suggest that people have a right to serve blight notices on British Coal once any notice under clause 44 is served, although I think that there is a case for that. By nature, I am a moderate man, so my compromise amendment does not even go so far as to suggest that.
      Once a notice is served under clause 44(1), there will be blight. As soon as an estate agent or a surveyor hears that there has been pushed through a door a notice stating that
      822
      the property may one day be affected by subsidence, the property is blighted, but, as a moderate, I accept that we should not go as far as to enable people to exercise such a right in that situation. However, after people have received a notice under clause 44(4), people should have such a right. That subsection states that British Coal can serve a blight notice 12 months after the first notice and again 12 months after that if need be. It can continue to serve notices warning householders that there is a danger of subsidence to their property.
      While the initial notice under clause 44 should perhaps not trigger off blight provisions, if British Coal reaffirms the threat of danger or the warning of damage to a property because of subsidence, as a notice under clause 44(4) would do, the householder should have a right to serve a blight notice.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and has great knowledge of the measure. Unfortunately, I was not privileged to be chosen to serve. Does he think that British Coal could use blight to force prices down it were compelled to purchase a property? Back in the 1950s and 1960s, councils bought houses for a pittance because they were in slum clearance areas. If British Coal were ruthless enough, it could put a blight notice on an area because it realised that it would have to pay, but it would make an offer at a rock-bottom price and the householder might not wish to sell. If my hon. Friend is not careful, his provision could work in two ways.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I believe that planning and compensation legislation has changed considerably since the time of the example quoted by my hon. Friend. Whereas that was a danger once, I do not think that it is now. Indeed, even in the Minister's new clause, the discretionary power is for payment of an equivalent to the unblighted value of a property. We sorted out the matter in planning and compensation law some time ago. British Coal would not be able to get away with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggests, and I do not think that it is an objection to my amendment.
      Two things should happen to the new clause. First, we should strengthen it, to establish a right rather than a discretionary power. The new clause allows British Coal to carry on as it has done before and that is not good enough, therefore we should establish a right. I offer a compromise version of that right by suggesting that if a notice is served time after time under clause 44 warning householders of the possibility of damage, even though it has not occurred, householders should have the right to expect British Coal to purchase the property if they want to move for a variety of good reasons. It should be a right and not a discretionary power as the new clause suggests.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: New clause 1 is rather like clause 41—the arbitration clause. It gives the Minister and his successor the power at some later stage to introduce mandatory regulations. It is what some of my more meticulous friends might call the rule of the threat of law, and it is designed to concentrate the minds of institutions such as British Coal and to remind them that if they do not play ball with their voluntary codes, the Government will use the power that Parliament has given to it through measures like this.

      823
      I welcome the new clause but, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could spell out certain matters so that no one in British Coal can be in any doubt about precisely the range of possibilities that we wish to encompass within it.
      Clearly, two kinds of blight are associated with coal mining subsidence. The first is very much of a temporary nature and is when a property is subject to subsidence, everyone in the area or on the estate suddenly goes into a panic, the price of the property falls through the floor but later the situation stabilises and after a few months property prices return to normal. The second type is more long-term and is the one with which we are all most concerned tonight, when there is a long-standing history of subsidence which is not constantly manifest at a high profile, but comes to the surface at irregular intervals. People who bought properties a few years previously when there was no general concern about subsidence in the area, suddenly find out about it and the price of their property depreciates.
      Mr. Meale: Surely when there is subsidence and the prices of properties in an area are blighted, it does not right itself. We must establish protection for people within the law because those property values are not going up. In coal mining areas where subsidence has occurred, the properties are the lowest priced pro rata for their region of any properties in Britain. They are seriously affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is trying to get a right for home owners rather than a might.
      The most disturbing facts about the new clause are that it not only provides for regulations "after consultation" with British Coal but that, in its introductory line, it only uses the word "may" rather than providing for a right.
      Mr. Howarth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he and I would be naive if we were to assume that the word "consultation" in respect of negotiations that a Minister of the Crown might wish to have with an organisation such as British Coal implied the relationship that he suggests. If the Minister were to return to the House and seek approval for such regulations, it would be because the voluntary arrangements with British Coal had failed. In British Coal's case, it is far more likely that consultations would be more of a damage limitation exercise rather than a question of setting the terms. I suspect that the Minister would set the terms. Neither my hon. Friend the Minister nor his successor would address an issue such as this without their attention having been drawn to the great concerns expressed by the House at this time. Therefore, the regulations will be fairly stringent.
      The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to a few cases where both he and I believe that it would be sensible for British Coal to agree to purchase a property. The Minister said that the owner would have to want to sell for good reason, and he referred, as an example, to someone who lost his job and also to a house that was in imminent danger of being damaged by subsidence. There have been a few cases in my constituency of people being unable to raise cash for business ventures because the value of their property has fallen; they have therefore been unable to raise cash from
      824
      a lender. The traditional way in the United Kingdom of setting up a business or expanding it is, rightly or wrongly, to use one's residence as collateral. If the value of somebody's house falls, that person is unable to raise funds to expand the business or to start up in business. I hope that the Minister will spell out to British Coal that that is another case that it ought to bear in mind.
      People may also want to move house because, due to their family having expanded, their existing house is too small. The fact that those cases have been spelt out on the Floor of the House might help British Coal to understand the range of cases that Parliament is considering and that it believes British Coal ought to take into account when assessing entitlement to blight compensation.
      Mr. Tony Benn: The Bill aims to protect people who are likely to be affected either by subsidence or by the threat of subsidence. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is the absolute minimum that we require; had I drafted it, I should have included the words "any order under clause 44." If the coal board issues a notice that shows that it may damage somebody's property, that is blight. Blight relates not only to subsidence but also to the threat of subsidence.
      The Bill provides that, if somebody's house, through no fault of that person, is to be undermined by British Coal, for its own good reasons, that person's future is under the control of others. British Coal has the discretion to buy the house, or to remedy the defect, or to make a payment in lieu. British Coal also has the right to decide whether somebody has good reason to want to sell his or her property. Apart from the value of somebody's house being undermined, that person is also on probation to British Coal. Nobody will object to the new clause, if that is the best thing on offer, but all that the Minister says is that he will take a reserve discretion.
      We must consider that from the point of view of somone whose house is affected. Many of these people are elderly and do not know where to turn for help. This is a complicated Bill, a point to which we shall return when we consider new clause 2 which would establish advice centres. People may suddenly have a notice pushed throught their door saying that their house may be affected. That is blight. The news spreads immediately and affects the whole area. Then they find that British Coal will have power over their lives: it can do one of three things and can then decide whether people have good reason for leaving houses that it intends to blight. The Minister says, "If it all goes wrong, we might introduce regulations which might do this or that." What use is that to people who are under pressure?
      Members of Parliament have cases put to them every day. That happened to me only a few days ago. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to write to the Minister, who will then tell us that he is waiting for British Coal to act? If one writes again to the Minister, he will reply, "Until British Coal has acted, I can't decide whether to lay a regulation." People will not know what to do. Therefore, my hon. Friend's amendment is eminently reasonable, as is evidenced by the fact that it has received limited support from Conservative Members who represent people who have been affected. That inclines me to the view that in the other place this wrong should be put right. If British Coal wanted to damage somebody's house, that person would then have the right to say to it, "If you

      825
      want to damage my house, you must buy it." A proper balance of rights and responsibilities should be enshrined in the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will take seriously this exceptionally modest amendment. It makes sense to anyone who has any experience, either personally or through representations, of the problems created by mining subsidence.
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). We have to ascertain what is meant by blight. That is difficult. If, however, British Coal's evidence to the Select Committee on Energy on coal mining subsidence is anything to go by, it will never agree to new clause 1. On previous occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to a startling example—the small village of Darrington, which contains the highest-priced houses in my constituency. They cost about £150,000 which, in my area, is a very high price. The Prince of Wales colliery at Pontefract is taking coal from under that village.
      In recent weeks Yorkshire Television has highlighted that problem, and also the fact that the ancestors of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers are buried in Darrington church. British Coal will have to carry out major restoration work if that church is to be saved. It has already purchased a few badly damaged properties in the village.
      I have dealt with the case of a purchase from a man who has a job in Lancashire. He was a miner who was made redundant. Houses in the village which are not damaged are blighted because they cannot be sold at the market value that would have applied prior to mining subsidence. Who will decide which property will be damaged and which will not? There is not much consolation for a person whose house has not been damaged but which still loses its market value.
      7.30 pm
      If new clause 1 means what it says and covers all subsidence and all blight, the village of Darrington is blighted. One can imagine what will happen. The people of the village have a right to protection, but new clause 1 will not provide it. It contains too many mays and mights. Will it ever mean anything? I do not want to be churlish about the new clause because any improvement on previous regulations is welcome. I am not saying that there has not been an honest endeavour to assist, but without my hon. Friend's amendment new clause 1 will not solve the problem. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take note of the amendment and will acknowledge that, without it, new clause 1 means nothing.
      Mr. Eric Insley: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) mentioned Darrington, but he did not deal specifically with the church there. It may assist all hon. Members to hear what will happen to the church, which is to have its stained glass windows removed and the floor removed to a depth of about 7 ft so that it can withstand the mining operations underneath it. If my hon. Friend were to refer to what will happen to the church, it would give some idea of what would happen to the £150,000 houses in the village.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I thought that I had mentioned the church, which is to have extensive repairs. It will be a major exercise, and I do not think that it is yet known whether it can be saved. It is a mediaeval church and a listed building, and the coal board has great problems with it. One can imagine the type of problems caused by the nature of such a church and the fact that the property around it is also blighted. Professional people and others coming into the area are keen to live there, but there is evidence that the price of houses has recently taken a dive. It is a major problem, and I repeat that new clause 1 will not solve it without the amendment, which will go some way to identifying blight.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: When I saw the new clause on the amendment paper, I was pleased that the Government had recognised the problems of blight for areas suffering from coal mining subsidence. On Second Reading and in Committee, I and my hon. Friends gave many examples of properties that had suffered blight and of communities where the sale of property virtually ceases because of subsidence damage in the area. Therefore, I was more than surprised to hear the Minister say that he felt that British Coal, in its Brown Book, was dealing adequately with the question of hardship and was doing a good job. I hope that I am not misquoting him in saying that. If what he said were so, we would not have argued in Committee for an explanation of exactly what blight meant with regard to coal mining subsidence.
      I and my hon. Friends hope that new clause 1 is a recognition of the fact that subsidence blights not only the damaged property but neighbouring property. That idea was mentioned in Committee and the Minister went away to consider it. The amendment deals with blight where a notice of intent to mine has been laid and withdrawn and then laid again.
      Although I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), it is difficult to say where blight begins and ends. If a notice to mine is withdrawn and then laid again in a year's time, I have some doubt whether there should be an obligation on British Coal to buy back such properties. I say that in light of the fact that houses can be undermined by coal mining and yet not suffer damage. Whether a property suffers damage depends on what sort of mining engineering goes on underground. Blight might not affect the properties being undermined. Second Reading and in Committee, we consistently sought to ensure that, when it was plain that blight extended further than the damaged property, there would be an obligation on British Coal to buy back that property if it caused hardship. The Minister said that it was not the intention—again I hope that I am not misquoting him—to regulate at this stage.
      I support new clause 1, It deals with property being blighted by subsidence damage of by the possibility of such damage—something that British Coal has not recognised previously. I ask the Minister to consider the issue more closely and to decide whether we need regulations to deal with property which is patently undamaged but which is nevertheless blighted and cannot be sold because it is affected by what happens across the road or to the house next door which has been the subject of compensation. The Minister should consider introducing regulations as speedily as possible so that British Coal cannot dodge the

      827
      issue but should consider whether houses are blighted and agree that owners should be fully compensated for damage.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In Committee the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) always introduced his amendments in a constructive and thoughtful manner, and I did not dismiss them out of hand. The same is true today.
      I understand the difficulties that can be caused by blight. The effect of the amendment is to define a blighted property as one that has received a section 44 reminder notice. However, the purpose of the new clause is to avoid hardship arising from blight, so there is a difference of approach. During the past two years or more, my Department has not received details of any case in which British Coal has refused action under its Brown Book provisions in the case of hardship. I cannot comment on individual cases this evening, although if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the case he mentioned, I shall endeavour to have it reconsidered.
      The main problem with the amendment is that it ties blight to the issuing of a section 44 notice even in cases where the householder involved has no intention of moving and regardless of whether hardship is involved. That is why the Waddilove committee, when investigating that point, concluded that a balance should be struck between the interests of home owners and the interests of British Coal. If the amendment were accepted, British Coal would be obliged either to buy or to make up the difference in value of any such property regardless of whether the person concerned needed to move.
      Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is trying to knock down a case that we never made. We are trying to establish the house owner's right. The house owner would exercise that right only if he felt the need to do so. British Coal would not be compelled to purchase every property that had received a reminder notice under clause 44(4). However, the amendment would establish the right of a home owner who keeps on receiving such notices to serve a blight notice on British Coal. That is a reasonable proposition. The home owner would not do that lightly or frivolously. He would do so only because he felt the compulsion to leave his home because of the continued blighting of the property caused by continually receiving reminder notices of a continual risk of damage to the property.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has expanded slightly on the amendment. What he has said does not conflict with my initial description of it. The amendment would enable all owners in receipt of such a notice to compel the corporation to purchase blighted property regardless of whether the property owner or householder wanted to move or whether he was experiencing hardship.
      Mr. Benn: An entirely new concept of blight has emerged from the Minister's speech—a blight on civil rights. If one owns a house and wants to sell it, one sells it. If the house is about to be undermined and one wants to sell it, one comes under a hardship test applied by somebody else. That is a blight on a person's civil or economic right to sell his property. That is offensive.
      828
      Some people whose houses are undermined might rather live in the village and get the damage put right. Why, if they want to leave for any reason—it is up to them to decide—should the fact that the property is being undermined remove their civil or economic right to have a fair price under the Bill? I hope that the Minister will consider the point when the Bill goes to another place, because the case becomes stronger the more I hear it opposed.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am addressing myself specifically to the case made not only by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, but by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). Incidentally, I know something about the village that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned, because I visited a pit in Yorkshire last week at which that problem was raised with me.
      The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the position described by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford. There is a difference between blight and the more permanent damage to a property that may occur as a direct result of undermining. The essential point about the serving of a notice under clause 44 is that the mining may or may not proceed. The hon. Member for Merthy Tydfil and Rhymney will know that in some cases the notices are withdrawn.
      Under the Bill, the notices will have to be regularly reviewed, at least annually. If mining proceeds, damage may or may not occur to properties. If damage occurs, the properties must be restored to their undamaged state and to the satisfaction of the householder, in accordance with other provisions in the Bill. If the property is undamaged, the blight is removed in due course because the threat of undermining is not permanent.
      By its nature, a coal face is planned and progresses—or does not progress—and then, in the fullness of time, the blight is removed. Blight is not permanent, and the diminution in value of the houses which may or may not occur is likewise not permanent. That is the distinction between the blight provisions in the Bill and others that deal with permanent damage which may occur to properties.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: In the elongated process that the Minister is describing, what is permanent is that the householder will not be able to sell his property during the whole period. I chose to tie the blight provision to clause 44(4) and not to the more expansive provisions of clause 44(1) because I realised that clause 44(3) included a provision to lift the notices. Under clause 44(4), British Coal will serve notices twelvemonth after twelvemonth. Is the Minister saying that during the whole process of uncertainty about whether damage will occur, a poor householder will have to wait and that only on the ground of hardship will he be able to serve a blight notice or get British Coal to purchase his property?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: During the period of blight between the serving of a clause 44 notice and the eventual resolution of the issue, either by mining having taken place or by notice being served that it will not take place, if a

      829
      householder needs to move for a variety of reasons—and we can all instance examples—British Coal will purchase the house concerned or make up the difference between the blighted and unblighted values.
      Mr. Lofthouse: Surely the Minister must appreciate this point. A person may be interested in purchasing a house in, for example, Darrington. If he is told that the owner has had two orders under clause 44 saying that there may be mining subsidence and if he then sees an identical house for sale further up the street which has not had a notice served on it, which property will he buy at true market value? He will buy the property that has not received the notice and the owner of the house that has received the notice will either not be able to sell it or will have to sell it at a far lower price.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the householder can show, as he clearly could in the example given, that his house is less valuable, the provisions of the new clause come into play. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), the new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the more detailed eventualities. Hardship is a difficult concept to include in statute. There may be cases that are difficult to predict, so it is better to deal with them in regulations. At present, the practice of British Coal in purchasing properties does not extend to businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood pointed out. If it was thought right to extend the provision to businesses, especially to small businesses which were used as an example, that would be done by regulation under the new clause.
      Mr. George J. Buckley: We seem to have debated the new clause in relation to the definition of blight. There seems to be a contradiction between the Minister's definition and the need under the amendment for a regulation to have been submitted already. Would the Minister willingly purchase at market price a property that was either affected or likely to be affected by subsidence? He and anybody with sense would not purchase a property at the full market price if there is a likelihood of subsidence or if subsidence is already taking place. There must be an obligation on the perpetrator of any current or expected damage to compensate the owner by either making up the market price or purchasing the property.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. in the case that he quoted the owner could not sell the property for 12 months. I suggest that if a property will not move in a 12-month period, it is blighted and will not achieve the market price. No sane person in a mining community would buy a property that was listed to have mining operations under it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no difference between us on the definition of blight. It is obviously the case that a property which has received a notice that it may be mined under in the near future will usually be more difficult to sell than one that has not had such a notice. There is no dispute about that. However, as part of the Bill, we are considering whether and in what circumstances the British Coal Corporation should be obliged to purchase that property.
      Mining blight is almost always a temporary phenomenon because in due course the mining either does
      830
      or does not take place. If damage has occurred to the property, it is repaired and the property is restored to the satisfaction of the householder. So the matter is dealt with. We are left with the existing practice of British Coal to purchase properties, such as that instanced by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, which are affected by subsidence damage if failure to do so would cause hardship because for good reasons the owner of the property has to sell it during the months or years of the notice. The owner may have to move away to retire, to find a job elsewhere, or due to ill health which may necessitate moving to a smaller property. In such cases British Coal will either buy the property or make up the difference. That is the practice at present. The new clause provides for that practice to be put into statute.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the Minister has finished?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) wish to press his amendment?
      Mr. Rowlands: We must not take a negative decision in this House on the matter dealt with in the amendment because I hope that the common sense and logic expressed by me and so many of my hon. Friends about the need for provisions of a nature similar to that in the amendment will fall on sounder ears in another place. I hope that that will be so, and I shall therefore not press my amendment.

    New Clause 3

      COMPENSATION FOR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OF SMALL FIRMS
      '.—(1) Where at any time any property—

      (a) which is used wholly or partly for the purposes of a small firm; and

      (b) as respects which one or more notices have been or should have been given by the Corporation under section 44(1) below,

      is affected by subsidence damage, this section shall apply as respects the period beginning with that time and ending with the discharge by the Corporation of their remedial obligation with respect to the damage.
      (2) For each year or part of a year—

      (a) which falls within that period; and

      (b) in which any consequential loss resulting from the damage is suffered by the firm,

      the Corporation shall be under an obligation to make to the firm a payment of such amount as would have been payable to the firm by way of damages in respect of that loss if the damage had been attributable to the negligence of the Corporation; and in determining the amount (if any) of such a payment regard shall be had to the rules of law relating to remoteness and the mitigation of losses.
      (3) The Corporation shall not be liable to make a payment under this section unless, as soon as reasonably practicable after the first time—

      (a) when the firm suffers any consequential loss resulting from the damage; or

      if later, when the firm has such knowledge as is mentioned in subsection (4) (read with subsection (5)) of section 3 above,

      the firm gives notice of the loss to the Corporation.
      (4) Where a notice is given under subsection (3) above, the Corporation may, by notice given to any person who is entitled to give a damage notice in respect of the subsidence

      831
      damage, elect to treat the notice under that subsection as if it were also a damage notice given by that person in respect of that damage.
      (5) The Corporation shall not be liable to make a payment under this section except on a claim made by the firm within the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the year or part of a year to which the payment relates.
      (6) A payment under this section shall carry interest at the applicable rate (if any) from the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5) above until payment.
      (7) In this section—
      "associated employer" shall be construed in accordance with section 153(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
      "consequential loss" does not include—

      (a) any loss for which provision is made by section 27(2) or (2A) above; or

      (b) any loss resulting from subsidence damage as respects which the Corporation's remedial obligation is excluded by section 31(3) or 32(4) or (7) below;

      "employee" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
      "small firm" means any person who, at the time when the property is affected by subsidence damage, is carrying on a business and satisfies the requirements of subsection (8) below;
      "year" means a calendar year.
      (8) A person satisfies the requirement of this subsection at any time if, at that time, the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.
      (9) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the number of employees specified in subsection (8) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other number of employees as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28, 13 to 17, 30, 31 and 35.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When we debated clause 29 in Committee, it was pointed out that treating subsidence damage to movable property as though it had arisen from British Coal's negligence would allow claims to be made for consequential loss. As a result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out at the time, the Bill as considered by the Standing Committee was inconsistent in that it allowed claims for consequential loss when these arose from subsidence damage to movable property, but not when they arose from subsidence to buildings. I therefore undertook to reconsider the issue of consequential loss.
      I remind the House that the Waddilove committee, which considered the matter, did not recommend that statutory provision should be made in respect of consequential loss arising from subsidence damage, except in specific instances such as crop loss payments to farmers and expenses incurred by householders who had to move home. It was not, therefore, the Government's intention to legislate to allow claims for consequential loss generally. However, it had escaped our attention that, in the case of movable property, such claims would be allowed.
      Although the general idea of consequential loss is well known, it is nevertheless a concept that lacks precise definition. Unlike the case of damage to property, consequential loss depends on such factors as the nature of the business affected, the state of its order book, the
      832
      availability of spare capacity, the duration of the damage, and scope for mitigation. It is hard for any business to assess its liabilities for consequential loss which it may cause in other businesses, given the uncertainties. That is offset for most businesses by the knowledge that a liability for consequential loss will arise only if they are negligent. But it would be much more difficult for British Coal to assess its liability for consequential loss arising from mining subsidence because subsidence is not negligence but part of its normal, day-to-day, lawful business operations.
      A business can operate without being negligent; but British Coal cannot realistically operate without causing mining subsidence. Accordingly, there would be a serious risk that substantial quantities of otherwise economically extractable coal reserves might be sterilised simply on account of the uncertain scale of liability that might arise from claims for consequential loss. This consideration alone would point towards proceeding cautiously.
      Another important point, however, is that British Coal is not acting negligently in carrying out mining operations. It is lawfully entitled to do so, in the public interest, in order to exploit a major energy resource. Where such mining damages property, the law requires the corporation to take remedial action and bear the expense. That is what the Bill is about. That is the case even if, for example, a developer erects a new commercial building in a mining area over mineable reserves of coal. He has in so doing created a new liability for British Coal—the liability to repair any subsidence damage to this new building arising from the mining of coal that it already owns. In a sense, one could describe this as a consequential loss for British Coal arising from the developer's activities—although in this situation the corporation has no entitlement to compensation for the increased cost of recovering those coal reserves or even for their sterilisation, if that is the consequence of the development.
      There are some fundamental issues here, involving a conflict between the legitimate interests of business operations on the surface and the legitimate business operations under the surface of the same land by British Coal.
      The House may have to return to this issue in future legislation, but for the moment I recognise that consequential loss experienced by business may give rise to hardship, and in such circumstances compensation would be appropriate.
      Mr. Meale: Will the Minister clarify one point? I fully appreciate what is proposed in the new clause. I realise that the Minister is helping the business community, but what about the large businesses in the communities called local authorities? Will consequential loss by them be covered? Such costs ultimately fall on the ratepayers. Is the provision only for small businesses?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall come to the types of business that would be covered by consequential loss, but I confirm to the hon. Gentleman something which he already knows. There is no provision in statute for consequential loss, and certainly local authorities are not covered.
      British Coal aims to deal sympathetically with such hardship cases. To give an easy example, if a corner shop loses trade while subsidence damage is being repaired, the sole proprietor could well experience hardship. On the

      833
      other hand, if a supermarket which operates in a mining area but is part of a regional or national chain loses trade in similar circumstances, the proprietors of such a geographically diverse business are unlikely to experience hardship.
      8 pm
      Hardship in this context would be difficult to define in legislative terms. As a proxy, we have prepared a new clause which allows compensation to be paid to small firms which experience consequential loss as a result of damage to their business premises. Amendments to clause 29 treat similarly consequential loss arising from damage to movable property.
      Because consequential loss is likely to increase with time, the clause would require the small firm to notify British Coal as soon as reasonably practicable after the loss is first experienced so that the corporation can suggest any mitigating action and the precise circumstances of the loss can be understood by the two parties to the claim to minimise the risk of subsequent disputes.
      Clearly, all reasonable steps to mitigate the extent of consequential loss should be taken as quickly as possible, and subsection (2) refers explicitly to the common law rules that apply. Notification of individual property owners under the provisions of clause 44 will alert the firm to the possibility of subsidence damage and therefore will assist in planning mitigating action. The serving of such individual notices on business premises will also remind British Coal of the possibility of consequential loss arising from mining operations. In all the circumstances, we think it right to restrict claims for consequential loss to properties for which such notices have been or should have been given.
      The definition of "small firm" is important. We have borrowed it from employment legislation and have set a ceiling of 20 employees, although we propose to vary that number by order and provide for that in the Bill.
      New clause 3 and the amendments to clause 29 establish a clear basis on which small firms, those most likely to experience hardship, could claim compensation for consequential loss arising from damage to business premises or movable property used by such businesses. It represents a sensible advance on present law. The wider questions connected with consequential loss will need to be looked at in connection with future legislation.
      Mr. Barron: I intend to be brief. We welcome new clause 3, which arises directly from amendments to clause 29 that we tabled in Committee. It deals with the question of compensation for consequential loss to movable property, but not fixed property. We gave as an example a dairy farmer.
      New clause 3 is a brave attempt to strike a balance. It addresses the question of how far coal mining is prejudiced by any losses that may be suffered on the surface—not in terms of property, which is easily definable, but in circumstances of consequential loss or of contracts that may be held by anybody working above any areas that are being mined. We are pleased that the Government have taken our arguments on board.
      The Minister said that the Government had borrowed the definition of small firms, which was firms of not more than 20 people. We hope that they will be flexible and prepared to vary the number by order to include bigger firms. We look forward to seeing how the proposed new
      834
      clause operates and whether it brings better, more effective justice to people and businesses, however small, that are affected by mining activities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 2

      ADVICE CENTRES
      `.—(l) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Corporation, ensure that the Corporation shall establish advice centres within three months of the commencement of the provisions of this Act.
      (2) The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence.
      (3) The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims under regulations made under the provisions of this Act.
      (4) All reasonable expenses of the advice centres will be met by the Secretary of State.
      (5) The Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the working of the advice centres to be established under the provision of this section.'.—[Mr.Barron.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      On Second Reading on 4 February we had a thorough debate on advice centres. In Committee we tabled a comprehensive new clause about advice, but unfortunately neither the Minister nor Tory Members supported it. We were sorry about that, because even the Government's White Paper on subsidence half-recommended that there should be advice centres or, at least, one advice centre. Many people have been involved in other organisations, such as the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, and have supported advice centres.
      Despite the improvements to the position of claimants that will result from the Bill, particularly when tonight's amendments are included, there needs to be a shift in favour of the claimant at an early stage. From past practice, it is clear that it is not good enough to rely on British Coal to tell a claimant of his or her rights. People need advice before they become claimants.
      After the issue of notices about the likelihood of mining beneath a property, people will naturally want to take advice on what should happen next. Their neighbours will also have been notified that British Coal may in the near future need to undermine their property. It is not enough to ask people to go to a solicitor or an agent who must be paid from the claimants' pockets. Only successful claimants can have their expenses reimbursed. Many people may wish to seek advice when they receive the initial notice, whether or not they later become claimants. The Bill does not respond to their need.
      As I said on Second Reading and as we have said consistently over the years when we have debated these issues at different conferences, particularly in the midlands coalfield, and when we have issued press releases, free, impartial expert advice is essential. The only way to achieve that is through an advice centre. We have won the debates on these issues, but lost the votes.
      I do not expect us to press the issue to a vote again tonight. The other place may wish to consider what the Department of Energy, the Select Committee on Energy and other bodies have said about what happens in the initial stages of possible coal mining subsidence damage

      835
      and how an individual protects his interests against the vested interests of British Coal. Thank goodness British Coal must now notify the individual that the property may be undermined, but it still has a vested interest in not paying compensation for damages or expenses arising from claims, whether or not they are successful.
      There is still an imbalance. Has the Minister considered further the arguments that we put in Committee? I hope that they will be put in another place if we are not successful tonight in getting the Minister's commitment to consider the issue again.
      We had a long debate in Committee about the location of a "national" advice centre. Conservative Members asked why it should be in one particular place. The obvious place was, and still is, in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield in view of the number of subsidence cases there, but that is not the only area for which the centre would operate. Many agents in that area would make a good living from coal mining subsidence. Some of them have become millionaires in a few years because of the circumstances in that area. Many people in my constituency and elsewhere correspond with those agents because they are expert at winning justice from British Coal when a person's property has been damaged by coal mining subsidence.
      That is not a geographical argument. We should have a national base so that people would know who to contact or would be referred to it by a local advice service that may not give advice on coal mining damage. People could write to the centre and receive expert advice without having to go to an agent or a similar organisation and put money up front. If they never had a successful claim, they would have to pay that money out of their own purse even though they had been notified of the likelihood of damage to their property by the British Coal Corporation.
      I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, if he has not done so already, so that people can obtain advice without having to confront the British Coal Corporation, with all the money it has to fight its corner.
      Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right. We had an extensive debate on this matter in Committee. Like all those who lose the vote, the Opposition always imagine that they won the argument. They did not win the argument, nor did they win the vote. As has been pointed out, they were only asking for one national advice centre. We had the impression that it should preferably be in Mansfield, although I acknowledge that the report of the Committee proceedings refers only to Nottinghamshire. We shall not fall out about that.
      At that time we were talking about a team of qualified heaven-knows-who's. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is not here today, as he defended the poverty-stricken barristers who were offering their services at a fraction of the cost of all the other experts who had been trotted out.
      In Committee, I said that the clause had a superficial attraction, and it is true that there is a superficial attraction to the clause before us today. However, I still do not agree with it, and I will not support it. I did not approve then and I do not approve now of yet another centre to add to the multiplicity of centres. I am quite certain that with careful
      836
      thought and discussion between the Department of Energy and British Coal, given the relevant clauses in the Bill, the problem can be solved sensibly, cost-effectively and with the interests of my constituents as much as anyone else's well covered.
      Organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the advice centres of district councils and various solid fuel showrooms can all provide information. When the CABs were mentioned in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley commented that the CAB funding in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) had promptly been withdrawn by the local authority. That decision is a comment on the priorities of Labour authorities. It is sad that a CAB should have its funding withdrawn. There are less important matters that a local council could discontinue if there was a choice between that and funding an important organisation such as the CAB.
      8.15 pm
      In Committee the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a valid point. He said:
      "The scale of the problem is great"—
      to give him his due, he gave credit to the Bill—
      "as is the scale of the change to legislation proposed in the Bill."
      I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say:
      "it is unthinkable that the changes to legislation being discussed in the Committee could be implemented without an independent source of advice to property owners and householders."
      I agree that the advice must be independent. That is why I view with some puzzlement the wording of the original clause and of the new clause, which does not specify independence of advice. That is a problem, and it is why I do not like the new clause. I should prefer that British Coal made a funding contribution to centres not run by British Coal, or to a local authority so that the advice would be independent. The new clause will not deliver that.
      I am anxious that my constituents get good advice. I do my best and my city council does its best. On this issue, I am at one with the hon. Member for Mansfield. I hope that I am not getting the hon. Member into difficulties merely because there is cross-party agreement on some of these matters. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee;
      "The most worrying aspect of the problem is that in Nottinghamshire large numbers of claimants have used coal mining subsidence agents. Existing legislation has shoved people in that general direction".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 March 1991; c. 263–64.]
      The hon. Gentleman is right, but Opposition Members would have to agree that we are now in a totally different ball park. The Bill does away with many of the problems that have bedevilled all hon. Members in recent years. The Bill deals with those problems sufficiently.
      Opposition Members, whether they like to admit it or not, accepted our criticisms of their one national advice centre. We mentioned that many hon. Members faced these problems and they accepted that there was no point in having one centre, convenient though it might be, in Mansfield. Lo and behold, the Opposition have come up today with a new clause which proposes a number of centres but does not specify how many. I can imagine them making a meal of this if, heaven forbid, they were ever in government.

      837
      However, they have changed one thing from the old clause—they have realised that by the time they have logged up any number of highly qualified engineers all sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to seek their advice, it would be an unfair imposition on British Coal. So what did they do? They changed subsection (4) so that the cost is now to be met by the Secretary of State. That is a switch from British Coal having to pick up the bill. I have a feeling that they are trying to create another local authority bottomless pit. That is what is all about. It would be a bottomless pit of funding for centres in mining areas.
      Every member of the Committee knew that this was a good Bill. It is not any worse without the clause—if I thought that it was, I would vote with the Opposition. There is enough in the Bill to satisfy my constituents and I am more than happy to accept the view taken by the Government in Committee—I presume that they will take the same view today—not to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Benn: The issue is not whether this is a good Bill but whether the people who need to take advantage of its provisions know their rights. Without disrespect to the Minister—I have occupied a post in his Department—I noticed the enormous care with which he read the briefing provided by his officials. He could not even look up because he had to get it absolutely right. Many Ministers are in that position, but they have legal advice behind them. The people who suddenly receive notice that British Coal may undermine their house or village panic because they do not know their rights.
      It is no criticism of the Bill that it is so complicated. Indeed, good Bills sometimes have to be complicated to remedy what is wrong with the old legislation. Nobody doubts that the Bill improves the old legislation. Paragraph 4 of schedule 7 happened to catch my eye as I was listening to the previous speech. It states:
      "any unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of preventive works under section 4(1)(a) of the 1957 Act shall have effect as an unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of such works under paragraph (a) of subsection (2)"
      What hope have pensioners who have lived in the same house all their lives of making sense of such language? They have no hope at all. To remedy that problem, one must not only understand the law but ensure that those who need the law's protection know their rights. They can go to a solicitor or an agent, and some people do so. In my consultations with British Coal in Chesterfield, I was informed that the agents sometimes make the process take longer because of the complexity of the correspondence. Sometimes people resist going to an agent because they think that he will make more than they will out of the operation.
      People need advise, and to make fun of whether there should be one advice centre or many is absurd. Advice is needed in the areas where people's properties will be undermined when that undermining occurs. That varies from coalfield to coalfield and from seam to seam. It is absurd to say that it will mean a bottomless pit of expenditure, when all we ask is that people should be able to take avantage of the rights that the Government are giving them under the Bill. I cannot imagine anyone whose house or business is threatened by British Coal's mining operations wanting to waste money. Such people want to find out their rights, take advantage of the Bill's
      838
      provisions, have the matter put right and put it behind them if they can. What possible motive could they have for wasting time on such a matter?
      The Bill is so precisely drafted that, once it is enacted, the rights of claim will have to be granted. If people who make claims are not eligible, they will be dismissed. The Bill does not represent an endless right to time-wasting consultations. This issue contrasts sharply with all the lectures on consumer rights and the right to choose. Surely the basic right to choose is to know one's rights when they are threatened by a public authority which, as the Minister said, is legally engaged in excavating for coal reserves which, unhappily, happen to be under one's house or village.
      The amendment is modest. Any hon. Member who has had, as I have, anxious constituents coming to see them, or who has visited areas where subsidence has occurred, will have seen the desperation on people's faces when they discover that the homes that they have bought are subsiding, with splits in the walls and gaps in the roof or the road, or the disconnection of mains supplies. Invershall special school for mentally handicapped children in Chesterfield, which I have just opened and which has just raised money for new facilities, has discovered that one of the seams of the Markham colliery would threaten that school.
      It is no good speaking as though we were a convention of lawyers examining the matter. We are all lay persons discussing the drafting of the legislation, but we can speak confidently about how the Bill will be seen by those who need its provisions. We are representatives, not legal experts. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amount of money involved would not only be trifling but might save British Coal and others from time-wasting negotiations with agents and solicitors who do not have the interests that the promoters of the new clause or British Coal might have. British Coal also wants to dispose of such matters quickly. It does not want them to drag on for months or even years with people using the services of agents. It wants a quick settlement.
      The Bill gives a clear statement of British Coal's obligations and I have no doubt that it will wish to discharge them quickly and effectively. People need advice so that they can claim immediately. By the expeditious discharge of claimants' duties and rights, we can save public money. I hope that the Minister and the officials listening so attentively to the debate will reflect again. The new clause will be a minor addition which, if carried, will make the Bill real to the millions of people whom it intends to help and will not handicap the discharge of its provisions.
      Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I referred in my maiden speech to his contributions as Member for Bristol, South-East. I now refer to a number of locations that he will readily identify because they are in and around Bristol.
      In Committee, I criticised the fact that the amendment referred to first one centre. I do not believe that an advice centre would be warranted for the Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire area. I use the word "area" not only because I refer to my constituency but because I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's former constituency and that of the Minister. It is also your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The area has, on different occasions,

      839
      been mined for coal and some houses have been affected. I am sure that advice centres are not necessary and that people in my area would refer to centres based in south Wales—in Newport or Gwent, for instance. The vast majority of my constituents would not go to advice centres but would seek advice on subsidence, as they currently do, from other sources that are readily to hand.
      As Committee members heard ad nauseam, I am currently dealing with cases in Kingswood and Hanham, on which I and other people are providing advice. That is how, even under the amended legislation, that advice would be provided. The Bill makes substantial improvements to existing legislation, particularly as a result of the amendments on arbitration which the Government accepted and which protect those pursuing subsidence problems.
      Mr. Illsley: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says that the arbitration scheme will provide protection. Yes it will, but it will not provide advice. The arbiter will be required to adjudicate only on a dispute between the claimant and British Coal; he will not be able to give advice to the claimant or to British Coal.
      Mr. Hayward: I accept that point, but I was saying that, in terms of strengthening the Bill, the arbitration right is the pinnacle of an overall pyramid of support given to individuals in those circumstances. I also asked in Committee—and I do not believe that the matter has been dealt with—why we should have free advice centres in this sector when we do not have them in relation to the Housing Defects Act 1984 or the right-to-buy legislation and other areas affecting large numbers of people. Advice centres are available in one form or another—why should they not cover this legislation as well as other legislation?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Might it not be that people may require advice on the procedures leading to the very arbitration that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says is worth while? Might they not want advice on whether to seek to make use of the arbitration procedure and some of the cases that they should put to arbitration?
      Mr. Hayward: Yes, they could. However, as I said in Committee, since I have been a Member of Parliament—eight years—in the subsidence cases with which I have dealt under what is, compared with the Bill before us, totally inadequate legislation, advice has always been available to my constituents. If one follows the argument in terms of the legislation and the provision of advice centres, why should we not provide advice centres for every other piece of legislation that we pass in the House? We would have a myriad advice centres down every high street, replacing the current myriad building society outlets in every high street. We received clarification from the Minister in response to our debate on the subject in Committee. He said that he accepted the points that had been made and agreed with those of us who said that it was not necessary to have advice centres, but he made it clear that British Coal intended to provide a series of leaflets and videos available to people to whom individuals would naturally turn.
      840
      For those reasons, along with those already en-numerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I believe that it is not necessary to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I am surprised about two issues. The first relates to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I believe that he would think differently if he had had the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have had, to investigate in some depth the problems of subsidence and its administration in the Nottinghamshire district. In 1985 or 1986, members of the Select Committee on Energy and I went to Nottinghamshire, to Mansfield, to investigate the issues. We found that agents there were operating in a professional way—some of them were ex-Coal Board employees and some of them finished up in gaol. At that time, British Coal's total budget for subsidence, as shown in the annual report, was about £215 million. Some £200 million of that had been spent in Nottingham.
      Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I went to Nottingham, we had a chance to question the agents. Two of the agents, former Coal Board employees, did not leave British Coal on retirement or redundancy terms when they were in their middle fifties or sixties to take up consultancy posts, which seems to be the habit of some British Coal management these days. They left British Coal when they were young men. I asked them why. One of them said that he liked tennis and wanted more time to watch it. The other one was a bit more honest and said that he wanted to set up his own business because he saw that there was potential for it. He was right, because he and the other agents—I am not referring to the ones in gaol—finished up riding about in Rolls-Royces. There must have been a reasonable rake-off from the £200 million of the Coal Board's budget.
      If any hon. Members should support the new clause, it should be those from Nottingham. Some of the people whose properties were, unfortunately, damaged had to rely on the agents and hope that they would receive the correct advice. However, the agents did not do too badly out of it. If the new clause were accepted, it would go a long way to cutting out many of the problems. If ever there was a need for advice centres anywhere, it is in Nottingham.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Let us be clear on one point. Nobody is seeking to justify some of the outrageous activities that went on among agents under the old legislation. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should look at the new clause, which my hon. Friends and I believe is unnecessary in the light of the Bill before us. It is in the context of the Bill that we now say that formal advice centres are not needed. We are not saying that advice is not necessary, but there are plenty of ways of providing it. However, we should set the matter in the context of the Bill, which protects our constituents.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) would support the jiggery-pokery that went on in the early 1980s. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not feel that advice centres are necessary under the Bill. Perhaps the Department does not feel that they are necessary, but that was not always the case.

      841
      The report of the Select Committee on Energy, which the House ordered to be printed on 17 July 1990 and which deals with mining subsidence, states, in paragraph 22—and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) well remembers this:
      "In its discussion paper of 1990 on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy raised the possibility of a Subsidence Advice Centre, staffed by chartered surveyors and solicitors with experience of subsidence damage, which would aim to provide advice to those who were dissatisfied with the way in which British Coal had dealt with their case."'
      Many other witnesses before the Committee supported the Department's views and, arising out of that evidence, paragraph 24 of the Committee's report states:
      "Nevertheless, we support the Department of Energy's suggestion of an independent Subsidence Advice Centre on an experimental basis."
      My second surprise resulted from the fact that the Bill did not contain that provision when the Department had been suggesting it. If that is the case, what is the argument of the Minister and his colleagues against the new clause?
      Some of the agents are still operating in Nottingham—fortunately, my district and those around it do not have that problem. The only way to put an end to that practice is through the new clause. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give serious consideration to it. The Select Committee believes that the new clause is necessary. and if anyone had had the privilege, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I had, of listening to the witnesses and researching the matter in depth, I am sure that he would agree that there was a need for the new clause and advice centres.
      Mr. Meale: I have been greatly saddened to hear some of the comments of Conservative Members. I had thought that we were all at one on the need to clear up this problem once and for all with this Bill. I was particularly surprised by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said. He knows about the despair that subsidence has caused and is continuing to cause people in his area, and he should not have made light of it; that was beneath the belt. Thousands of properties in his constituency continue to be damaged by this problem and that damage is getting worse all the time.
      All we are proposing is an advice centre. The new clause does not stipulate whether it should be a national centre or whether there should be one in every coalfield area or in every district council area that includes mines. We want only a place where people can get advice—although the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that a centre was not needed in his constituency. Perhaps he thinks that a citizens advice bureau is the answer, but a centre such as the one that we propose would still be useful because on cases in his constituency CABs could refer to such a centre, wherever it might be. That is the whole purpose of setting one up.
      The centre is not to be a centre of excellence for lawyers, solicitors, architects and surveyors; it is to be a place to which people can go for proper advice. I have the highest regard for CABs and local authorities, but people should not go to them for advice on this matter because they are not experts on it. To refer cases to such bodies would be to repeat what has already gone wrong: self-proclaimed experts have set themselves up to give advice.
      People should be given advice free of charge. This Bill provides the opportunity of giving them that advice for as little as £50, plus VAT, which is now running at 17·5 per cent. If a person is badly advised on making a claim, he
      842
      may be involved in further expenses when pushing his claim to a successful conclusion. Cases which are not won or which go to arbitration may also involve additional costs, which shows that people need good advice from a centre of this sort.
      8.45 pm
      People ask where the money is to come from and whether the Secretary of State can afford it. Of course he can. The sum of £300 million has already been added to the price of coal that is produced in this country for the sole purpose of paying for subsidence damage claims. If the money had been set aside in a separate account accumulating interest, as it should have been, it would have provided hundreds of millions more pounds, thereby avoiding these difficulties. In some cases, the money has been used to close mines. If it can be used for that, it can certainly be used for the purpose that we propose.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightly mentioned coal mining agents. Unless we set up an advice centre to give advice to people suffering from the horrendous difficulties of subsidence, the problem with agents will continue. Nothing in the Bill would curb the activities of these agents —quite the reverse. We must take this opportunity to set up a centre that will give people good advice on the most important matter in their lives—their homes. If we do not, we shall push them further in the direction of the so-called experts, some of whom know little more than how to read a slide rule.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was treating the new clause in a lighthearted way, but I shall not withdraw the compliments that I paid him on what he said.
      If a person pays a fee to a solicitor, he at least has some protection in law. That should give the hon. Gentleman pause for thought about his demands for free advice. What happens to the claimant if that free advice is found to be inadequate?
      Mr. Meale: My constituency is full of solicitors who have advised thousands of people with their claims. It has cost those people on average more than £1,000 per household, and most of their claims have been turned down. Many solicitors have used the legal aid system, up to a maximum £1,500 or £2,000, depending on the case, to advise people wrongly. The result is that the legal aid system has been stripped of the money—a bad system.
      This is why we need an advice centre. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, it would be cost-effective. British Coal should not be involved in legal disputes all the time. This Bill will allow agents the same freedom that they have enjoyed before. It is no good the hon. Member for Nottingham, South saying, to use his unfortunate terminology, that we would be dropping local authority money down a huge pit. British Coal's job is to dig and sell coal, not to fight legal cases.
      Some years ago, when British Coal had a different attitude to this problem, its estates department in Nottinghamshire employed about six people, with four secretaries. Today it employs more than 50 advisers, architects and surveyors, and many more outside consultants, with a whole department of secretarial support. And the cost of all that is being added to the cost of digging coal in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

      843
      People should not be dragged by their ears by unscrupulous agents who would like clients to make claims because they know that ultimately they will recover their own costs. Frequently, agents whose cases have hit hurdles have returned to constituents asking for another £500 so as to put together several cases and return to the courts to fight one test case. That is all nonsense——
      Mr. Hayward: By how many people would the new clause reduce the number of people working on this matter in the estates department; and how many people would be employed in the advice centres to which the hon. Gentleman refers?
      Mr. Meale: First, if the right approach had been adopted, there might not have been any need for the Bill. Secondly, I think that the new clause would lead to a considerable reduction of problems in the coalfield. The issue is whether my constituents and those of other hon. Members are being correctly advised on whether they have a valid claim that should be pursued in the courts. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide a system of arbitration that will reduce the number of claims that otherwise would be decided by the courts. An advice centre would enable potential claimants to receive proper advice and thereby ensure that they were not dragged down paths leading to litigation to the benefit of surveyors, agents and, in many instances, solicitors. The Bill could produce a beano for solicitors and surveyors, and we must be careful to ensure that that is not the result of its being placed on the statute book.
      Many people do not know what is going on. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that it will be easy under the proposed legislation for people clearly to understand what they should do. It has been said that they will have only to pop along to their local authority and pick up a leaflet that will tell them exactly how to proceed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, that is nonsense. When most ordinary people read our legislation, they consider it to be gobbledegook; they cannot understand it. The same can be said of the forms that they are asked to complete, whether they are handed them by local authority officials or by the staff of CABs.
      People need advice and they should not be led into spending significant sums to obtain advice from solicitors or agents. We are legislating to overcome a problem that has had a considerable effect on people's lives in coal-mining areas. We must ensure that a system is put in place that enables them to receive honest and decent advice that will assist them in pursuing their rights. I am not saying that the Government should be prepared to hurl loads of money into a bottomless pit. Money is available, and in any event we are talking about a pittance when it is set against the global sum involved under the present system. We should not agree to the enactment of legislation without providing a system for people to obtain the advice that they deserve.
      Mr. Illsley: I shall not detain the House long in supporting the new clause. I reiterate the argument of my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is clearly a need for an advice centre. We are introducing new legislation, but the average man in the street's understanding of it will be no greater than his knowledge of the legislation that preceded it. Under the old legislation, he had to seek
      844
      advice before pursuing a claim. His position will be the same under the proposed legislation, for he will still have to seek advice. He will have to contend with time limits and other requirements.
      Members who represent mining areas deal with case after case of mining subsidence in which people are in dispute with British Coal. Many of those people do not understand how to make a claim. It became clear that most of the members of the Committee that considered the Bill were unsure of the time-limit provisions. It is hoped, however, that the Bill will settle many of the complications. It is obvious that many of our constituents need clear and independent advice. At present, they have the options of an estate agent, a surveyor or a solicitor. These people are professionals and they charge professional fees. In other words, they are costly to the claimant or to British Coal.
      It is unfortunate that not all the professionals have relevant qualifications. The average solicitor who practises in the high street will have no knowledge of mining subsidence. He will have even less knowledge of mining engineering. If claimants seek advice from some of the professionals, they will receive bad advice. Many solicitors will merely employ others and thereby add to the costs. Many advisers are unqualified. For want of a better term, they are cowboys. They saw a niche in the market, they filled it and they made a decent living.
      Many advisers have a clear interest in prolonging claims so that they can make as much money as possible out of them. In Committee I referred to a constituent who negotiated himself the greater part of a claim with British Coal. However, he also employed an estate agent. My constituent became frustrated in the course of pursuing his claim and accordingly arrived at a settlement with British Coal. He received X thousands of pounds in the sale of the property. When the agent was informed that his services were no longer required because the claim had been settled, the agent said that he would settle his fee on the basis of the settlement that he could have arrived at with British Coal and not on the actual settlement. If that is not a waste of public money and an example of money being thrown into a bottomless pit, I do not know what is.
      As I have said, ordinary people have little experience of reading legislation and understanding it. Many of them have difficulties in completing forms and submitting claims to British Coal. Many people cannot afford independently to obtain advice from estate agents and surveyors.
      The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that people in his constituency would not need advice on subsidence. He explained that mining in the area that he represents was discontinued a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have dealt with and assisted old miners in the St. Paul's area of Bristol who have sought compensation. He might be surprised when he learns of the extent of the need for advice in north Somerset and the St. Paul's district of Bristol.
      The hon. Member for Kingswood referred to the growth of housing advice centres. We already have housing advice centres. Advice on right-to-buy legislation will usually be obtained from a local authority that is dealing with the sale of property, so that that need for advice is filled. Solicitors who undertake conveyancing and have a specific knowledge of it can also deal with right-to-buy legislation. However, the average conveyancing solicitor will have no knowledge of mining subsidence.

      845
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) talked about solid fuel showrooms. They are funded by British Coal, and any advice they offer can hardly be regarded as independent or relevant. They exist only to sell solid fuel.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Watch it. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has at least 10 O-levels. He has an 11 th perhaps in subsidence, but goodness knows how.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Those who support the new clause say that they wish to ensure that people will be advised on how to go about making a claim. That is all very well, but the real work begins after that stage. That is why we are not enthusiastic about the clause. Technical advice will not be required initially. Subsequently, a surveyor will be needed to establish the size of the claim. The new clause will not redress half the grievances to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) have referred. Opposition Members are entirely missing the point in speaking in support of the clause.
      Mr. Illsley: As I think someone said, if I have 10 O-levels, what am I doing in this place? Subsection (2) provides:
      "The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence."
      The clause is not restricted to the making of a claim. New clause 2 covers legal and technical advice.
      I was referring to the Select Committee report from which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) quoted. I shall quote two lines to which he did not refer:
      "Such a Centre would not attempt mediation but would give expert advice to claimants on their rights and advise them on their best course of action … The Department stressed the need for the Centre to be 'quite independent of British Coal'."
      Time and again we have seen statements that any advice centre should be independent. The Select Committee went on to recommend that advice centres should be set up.
      The advice centre could have available all the information on mining subsidence such as mining plans and records. In Standing Committee we debated the idea of a register. Perhaps the advice centres could build up such a register. There has been substantial debate on where the advice centre should be located. As South Yorkshire already has the South Yorkshire mining advisory service, which is funded by the local authorities, there is no reason why that should not become a national mining advisory centre for the rest of the country.
      9 pm
      Mr. Andy Stewart: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's latter comment. Can he tell the House what the advisory centre in South Yorkshire does? Does it take claims from claimants and process them through to completion, or does it just advise people to get a solicitor or a surveyor to take up the case?
      Mr. Illsley: It does not advise them to get a solicitor to take up the case. It provides advice. That was a simplistic response to a simplistic question, "What does an advice centre do?" The advice centre gives advice to local authorities or to anyone else who needs advice about the geology and mining in the area.
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question properly. Does it take claims right through to completion? New clause 2 tells us that that is what the advice centre does.
      Mr. Illsley: I do not think that the advice centre takes claims through to completion. New clause 2 states:
      "The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims"
      and shall offer legal and technical advice.
      It does not say that an advice centre will take a claim from an individual and pursue it with British Coal, although there is no reason why the advice centre for which we are asking should not do that if it were given that responsibility.
      Mr. Meale: An organisation called COALS—the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—has just produced a report which shows that 33,500 people in the area have properties which may have been damaged by subsidence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said that thousands of claims which were disallowed because of the six-year rule for mining having ceased under those properties could now be reviewed. That is a legal and technical point. Many people in the area in which COALS operates need advice on that. Such advice is not freely available or necessarily understood by solicitors in the area. It takes an expert who understands the legislation to give such advice.
      Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I conclude by repeating that we need an advice centre. We have one in South Yorkshire, and we do not have the same problems that exist in north Nottinghamshire where agents have been taking money fraudulently. That goes some way towards showing that the advice centre in South Yorkshire has removed that problem and that South Yorkshire is better equipped than north Nottinghamshire to deal with such claims.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the main objections from Conservative Members to an advice centre seems to be the objection to the free provision of advice, instead of advice purchased from solicitors and others who are assumed to be expert, in that legal action could be taken if that advice turned out to be wrong. I do not agree. A great deal of advice that is freely available is not immune from legal action and is often found to be of considerable value. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), there is a citizens advice bureau, an unemployed workers' centre and a law centre that all provide advice and, if pressed, might have to deal with some aspects of coal mining subsidence. However, this is not within these bodies' areas of expertise.
      There are also plenty of solicitors and many agents who take up coal mining cases. At my surgeries in Chesterfield, which is at the centre of a wide area, people are much less likely to complain about the citizens advice bureaux or the centres for unemployed workers, or the law centres, than about solicitors. They wonder whether they should complain against agents, or against agents together with the corporation, acting under some kind of sweetheart agreement that must be broken through. This new clause would make provision for invaluable advice.
      Hon. Members asked where the advice centres would be located. We were told that advice might not be available in the Bristol area if a centre was established in Wales. Presumably the constituents of my hon. Friend the member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) would be provided for,

      847
      as there are massive subsidence problems in their area. That does not seem to me to be any argument against this proposal. So far as the people of Bristol are concerned, presumably the problem of the lack of immediate discussions as the basis of advice could be overcome.
      Many people fill in forms stating in detail the problems that they experience. Such people receive information and advice on the basis of the details provided, and sometimes outworkers are available to deal with specific problems. In many areas, detailed forms are submitted with a view to obtaining various types of information, and securing various types of expertise. Approaches are made in this way to the local government ombudsman and the local land registry. Why should not an advice centre operate on the same basis? A physical presence is not the only possibility.
      I shall conclude by repeating a point that I made in an earlier intervention: that advice centres would have a valuable role to play in connection with the arbitration procedure for which this legislation provides. The creation of an arbitration procedure is an important advance, but we need to know more about when it will be triggered. People pushing for its use need expert advice. They need to know whether they are likely to benefit by going down that road, rather than by accepting some other procedure.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: I want to tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that we already have advice centres, but they are not nearly good enough. I refer to the surgeries that Members of Parliament hold on Saturday mornings. Members are not qualified as surveyors, architects and solicitors. They must call for expert advice. For years, I have had a bellyful of dealing at my Saturday surgeries with mining subsidence problems. They hold everything else up. An elderly lady may have a problem that she thinks is as high as a mountain, but, for me, dealing with it may involve merely a telephone call. But mining subsidence problems get in the way even of those cases. We are seriously considering asking the Government to tell the corporation in no uncertain terms that there must be provision for proper advice surgeries.
      There has been mention, especially by Opposition Members, of the crooks. I know plenty of them. I am not talking only about solicitors or agents, but about board officials, too. They have gone down the line—and good luck to them. That is where they should be, for what they have done to our constituents.
      When someone goes to his Member of Parliament's surgery with a subsidence problem, it is because the agent has given his advice, and the board has said, "We reject this claim out of hand." The constituent therefore tells his Member of Parliament, "You are my last resort." What do I do? I send the case to the Under-Secretary of State—and he sends it back to the board. It is a vicious circle.
      I am a bit disappointed because, in Committee, one Conservative Member supported the idea of advice centres, but he has been burned off and is not present in the Chamber today. However, after the next general election he will probably be able to find a job as a legal adviser at one of the centres that will be set up if the Government do not. He can be assured of a job when he loses his seat at the next election because he knows all the problems, and spoke about them in Committee. He went along with us
      848
      then, but other Conservative Members have let the side down. They let down the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in Committee—and again today, because they stopped him supporting us this afternoon.
      The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) comes into the Chamber from time to time, in the same way that he attended the Committee from time to time. It galled me when I read in a Derbyshire paper that the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to do it all. He said to himself, "I shall get on the Committee for a start, and then I'll show them." He did not show them, because he did not damn well attend the Committee. He was hardly ever there. When he was there, all he did was to snipe at the Opposition's proposals for changing or adding to the Bill.
      Mr. Andy Stewart rose——
      Mr. Haynes: Just a minute—I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman will ask a question if I say he can, because Mr. Deputy Speaker gave me the Floor.
      Constituents come to my surgery who are totally illiterate. They cannot help that—they were born like it. [Laughter.] What a lot they are, on the Conservative Benches. I am talking about a serious problem and all that Conservative Members can do is laugh—a serious problem about someone who might be illiterate and who owns a property that has been damaged by coal mining, and who needs advice. Conservative Members think that is a big joke. That is the Tories, through and through.
      Mr. Stewart rose——
      Mr. Haynes: No, I will not give way now. The hon. Gentleman has flipping well upset me, so he can sit down.
      Mr. Stewart: I would not want to upset the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman will not be able to do so after the next general election, because I shall have retired. Nor will he be able to get a job in one of the advice centres that we will set up after we have won the next general election.
      The important point is that constituents who have that problem need proper advice. For years, they have been kicked from pillar to post, and all the fiddling has been going on.
      Mr. Stewart: We agree with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman may agree, but he does not understand the seriousness of the situation. He wants to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and he needs to talk to me. We have had real problems in my constituencies. It has been a nightmare. I have had a bellyful. I have had enough and I do not want any more.
      We want a Bill that will sort the problem out so that it does not go on for ever and a day. The advice centre is one of the steps that should be taken to deal with this problem.
      Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Haynes: He ain't half pressurising me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I might as well give him one tick.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for outlining what is a fact—my constituency is half a mile down the road from the hon.

      849
      Gentleman's and, like him, I have hundreds of people coming to ask me for advice. At the moment, if there were advice centres—disregarding this improved Bill—what could they achieve? What could they advise our constituents? Very little, because there has been no way to resolve disputes unless one went to the Lands Tribunal, and we both know how expensive that was. Under the new Bill we shall have arbitration.
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is talking a load of rubbish, just as he did in Committee. We have not got the Bill yet and we do not know how it will work.
      Mr. Stewart: We soon will have.
      Mr. Haynes: I am on my feet. Shut him up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Stewart: Answer the question.
      Mr. Haynes: Well, I ask you. I am trying to answer the question and he is yawping at me from his seat. I thought that you would have told him about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall have to tell him. I want the hon. Gentleman to be quiet and to listen.
      The Bill is not law yet.
      Mr. Stewart: It will be soon.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes, but it will be kicked around a bit down yonder, and it will be changed down yonder, I can assure the hon. Gentleman about that. They have already set themselves up down there and they know what has been going on here and in Committee. So they will do their job. The Bill is riot law and when it becomes law we do not know how it will work out. We are guessing in the dark.
      We know what experiences we have had in the past—right up to the present time—and it is a serious situation. We are trying to put that problem right and so we need proper advice to individuals in our constituencies—all constituencies where there is mining subsidence.
      People can be fobbed off by anyone. They have been fobbed off in the past by the board because it did not want to pay out any money for compensation and repairs. It has been a rough ride and I am looking forward to the problem being sorted out once and for ever.
      Wherever the advice centre might be—I could not care less, as long as it does the job that we want it to do on behalf of the constituents who have this problem—it is only one step towards sorting out the problem.
      Thank you, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I have enjoyed my contribution to the debate.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We had a similar debate in Standing Committee, although I do not think that we had quite the intervention from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)——
      Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a contribution to this Bill, not an intervention. I did not intervene on any hon. Member—I got up to make a contribution to the Bill in the hope that the Minister was listening and would take on board what I and my colleagues suggested.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It was an intervention in the debate, but not in someone else's speech. However, there were plenty of other occasions in Committee when the
      850
      hon. Gentleman told us about his constituents. This evening we learned that some people are born illiterate. That was a new aspect.
      The hon. Member for Ashfield mentioned a serious issue—many people find it difficult to understand legislation, however well drafted. The call for advice centres misses the point. We should not assist people to negotiate a complex chain of events; instead we should simplify the legislative process. A claimant would not then need to read and digest an Act to make a successful claim, any more than a pensioner needs to understand the Finance Acts to make a successful claim for his pension.
      I agree that the legislation that we inherited is entirely inconsistent and complex. We are dealing with two separate Acts of Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the 1975 Act was not used as an opportunity to clear up some of the ambiguities and inconsistencies between that legislation and the 1957 Act. We are consolidating the legislation and simplifying the process.
      When one considers the chain of events for a householder making a claim, one sees how much easier things will be if the Bill is passed. The householder will be notified individually that his property may be damaged by subsidence. At the same time he will receive a copy of my Department's leaflet tellling him how to go about making a claim. If subsequently he notices damage to his property, he will know that it may have been caused by subsidence because he has been notified, and he will therefore make a claim to British Coal.
      Unlike the present position, with two separate Acts of Parliament and two separate claims which can be made, in future there will be only one Act and only one claim form. In response, British Coal will have to say whether it accepts the claim and, if so, what remedial action it proposes to take. If there is a dispute due to rejection of the claim, or a dispute about the nature of the remedial action, the householder can refer the matter to arbitration. British Coal will send all claimants the details of the new scheme so that householders will be aware that this option is open to them and that it will cost only £50, which will be repayable in the event of a successful claim.
      If the householder decides that he has a dispute with British Coal, all that he needs to do is to submit the form to the institute, outlining the nature of the dispute. That does not have to be in technical language; specialist advice will not be needed. The arbitrator may call for specialist and technical advice and may visit the property in question, or he may sit with one or two independent technical assessors. He may even commission an independent examination of the subject matter of the dispute. British Coal, not the householder, will bear the costs involved. At no point in the process will the claimant necessarily need any technical or specialist advice.
      Mr. Meale: Does the Minister not agree that when a constituent seeks advice he does so about the single most important matter in his life—his home, which represents an enormous financial outlay, and on which his whole future depends? If, therefore, a householder believes that his house has suffered damage, he or she will obtain advice to supplement the application for compensation. That will cost money. Unless advice centres are established, householders may be pushed down the same path as they now go down, with solicitors who do not know the circumstances of the case handling the matter, with surveyors trying to get money out of householders and

      851
      pushing them towards making a claim, and with agents who are in it only for the money. The purpose of advice centres is to avoid those pitfalls.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am still not clear what the role of the advice centres would be. It does not seem to me sensible to spend money on technically trained people advising claimants that they should fill in a claim form, or to pay for lawyers to advise people that their dispute should be referred to the Institute of Arbitrators scheme. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to agents and to the fact that in the past they enriched themselves by feeding off the cash compensation that was paid out. I have heard about that problem. Compensation was not tied to the necessary repairs to a property, but that system has now ended and it is not reproduced in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
      Clause 36 also provides that, if a householder needed to employ specialist advisors such as structural engineers, any expenses reasonably incurred could be reimbursed to the claimant. I emphasise that only expenses that have been reasonably incurred can be reimbursed, so unnecessary fees and expenses claimed by an agent would not be reimbursable.
      Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I think that it would be helpful if the Minister were to set the issue in its proper context because most of the Opposition's criticism today has been as though we were dealing with the old set-up. Under the old system, the claimant had to prove that the damage to his home was the result of subsidence and the Coal Board could simply say that it was not. Now the boot is on the other foot. That is a fundamental difference. British Coal must prove that the damage is not caused by subsidence. The burden is not on the poor claimant, which caused most of the problem. It has all been changed, and if the system is accepted that is surely a better context for the debate.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend emphasises eloquently the point that I was trying to make earlier. We know that at present we have an unsatisfactory system. There are ambiguities and gaps in the legislation and there are inconsistencies between the two Acts, so it is hardly surprising that people are confused. The thrust of the Bill is to improve, to clarify and to simplify so as to obviate the need for specialist and technical advice.
      Mr. Meale: The problem with the reply that the Minister gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is that the law is such that all the thousands of people are still represented by agents. Perhaps I can help the Minister. To get us out of this hole, in which agents are handling thousands of cases, could the Minister say that local authorities in coal-mining areas could set up agencies to act on behalf of the thousands of residents and thus deal with the problem at one stroke?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Those thousands of agents may find that their expenses are not reimbursable under the provisions of clause 36. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, of course, if local authorities feel the need to provide additional services, not only are they free to do so, but British Coal has assured me that it
      852
      will provide assistance and information to them. Under clause 45, the corporation is obliged to inform local authorities of its mining plans. British Coal has also confirmed to me that it will make available to local authorities and to others their new internal manual of procedure, which is sometimes called one of the Brown Books and which will be prepared in the light of the new legislation. That document has not been available before.
      British Coal has also offered to make available such things as its new internal training video, which may be of interest to local authority staff and it has offered to provide additional information and literature on an ad hoc basis. Against the background of increased information and simplified procedure, I see little justification for the significant expense of advice centres along the lines envisaged in the new clause.
      I must also observe that the provision in the new clause that the advice centres should be funded by the Government is wholly inappropriate. In line with the "polluter pays" principle, it would be for the industry to meet any such additional costs, if they were justified. In this case, the costs are not justified and I invite the House to reject the new clause.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Barron: It may have been necessary to change the wording of the provision so that a proposal that was rejected in Committee could be debated at a later stage. I understand that the Minister has had some problems about advice centres, especially as his predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), left him with a Department of Energy that felt that we should have advice centres to deal with coal mining subsidence.
      Conservative Members have shifted ground in their argument in Committee and here tonight about whether to have one or more advice centres. The House has to decide whether we should have advice centres. One view is that people do not need advice. Those who hold that view have a lot of faith in British Coal and how the new system will work. The system has yet to be put in place and cannot be put in place until the Bill has been debated in the other place.
      There may be some adherence to the protection of the entrepreneurs who have set up business in north Nottinghamshire and in Derbyshire to deal with mining subsidence. If people could go to a comprehensive advice centre and could receive advice that dealt with more than the nuts and bolts of the Bill, the entrepreneurs would lose trade.
      I do not want to anticipate a later debate, but I must point out to the Minister that later amendments refer to the omission of people's right to go to the Lands Tribunal. In Committee, we were howled down by Conservative Members because we tabled amendments to remove the tribunal from such cases on the basis of its costliness and ineffectiveness in dealing with problems. We were told by Conservative Members that people should have a fundamental right to go to the Lands Tribunal if they felt that it was necessary, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, people could go to an advice centre without their incomes being preyed on when they were seeking advice.
      People may go further than the comprehensive arbitration under the Bill. They may want to get advice in relation to further legal matters, but the advice about

      853
      which Conservative Members spoke in Committee may not be available. I hope that, although the Minister does not want to consider our proposal now, the other place will consider it. People should be able to get advice to ensure that, when they pursue a claim against British Coal, they have sound advice which is not expensive and which puts them on the right road towards getting compensation for damage.
      In view of our debate, and because I hope that the other place will consider our proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      DISCRETIONARY PAYMENTS IN LIEU
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 8, at end insert—
      '(7A) Subject to subsection (7B) below, the Corporation are to be regarded as acting unreasonably in refusing any request falling within subsection (7)(a) above which is received before they have begun to execute remedial works.
      (7B) Subsection (7A) above does not apply where—

      (a) the Corporation have acceded to another such request made by another person;

      (b) the execution of remedial works by a person other than the Corporation would significantly impede the discharge of their remedial obligation in respect of one or more neighbouring properties; or

      (c) where the damage has rendered the property structurally unsound, the execution of such works by the person by whom the request was made or, as the case may be, by the person specified in the request would be unlikely to restore the structural integrity of the property,

      and (in any case) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request the Corporation give notice to that effect to the person by whom the request was made.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 11.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It has always been the Government's view that a claimant should have the right to use his own contractor except in certain special circumstances. Our original approach was that British Coal should be able to elect to make a payment in lieu to enable a claimant to use his own contractor. Clause 8 also stipulated that British Coal should not unreasonably refuse a request to make such an election.
      It was the view of many hon. Members in Committee that such an approach might allow too much discretion to British Coal. So I readily agreed to reconsider the matter to ensure that the claimant's position was safeguarded beyond doubt. Therefore, I have tabled a new subsection which, I hope, will meet the point. Its effect is to limit British Coal's right to refuse a claimant permission to use his own contractor to three specified circumstances.
      The first circumstance is the obvious one of where British Coal receives two requests for the same property. The second circumstance is where the execution of remedial works by a person other than the corporation would significantly impede the discharge of the corporation's remedial obligations. An obvious example is a block of flats that has been damaged. It would not be sensible to allow each part of that block of flats to be repaired by a separate contractor. That could create the absurd position that one side of a party wall was being tackled by one contractor and the other side was being repaired by another.
      854
      The third circumstance is where the contractor does not have the necessary expertise to repair seriously damaged property. For example, if a property is affected by fissuring—of which I saw one example in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—it may require highly specialised repair work. It would not be in anyone's interest to allow the work to be done by a company that was less than competent. Of course, if British Coal declined permission for one contractor, it might be possible to find another, but this is an important example of where the right of the claimant should be fettered.
      The other amendment in this group is what parliamentary counsel call a chiming amendment. It ensures consistency of phraseology throughout the Bill. With those explanations, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Barron: Once again, I thank the Government for responding to the arguments made in Committee and amending the clause to change the presumption in favour of the claimant's choice. I can see that our arguments have borne fruit.
      Opposition Members believe that people should be able to opt to carry out repairs themselves or select a contractor to do the work, unless there is specific and good reason for British Coal to do the work itself. The Minister gave the example of a block of flats. That is common sense. There might be other cases in which British Coal would have to show specific and good reason why the claimant should not do the work. I am sure the Minister has been advised on the matter.
      The intention of our amendments in Committee and the Government's amendments tonight—which we are pleased to support—is to stop people being forced to wait for repairs to be done to their property and consequently to live in damaged property for longer than necessary. On that basis, we gladly support the Government amendments.
      Mr. Meale: I appreciate the Minister's argument about a block of flats, but what about a street of houses? Would the use of contractors be restricted in the same way for work on a portion of a street of houses?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It may be more efficient in some cases to use a single contractor for a whole terrace, but that would not fit into the definition in the amendment. We have dealt only with cases where it would be absurdly wasteful, difficult or impractical to use various private sector contractors.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 7, line 10, leave out
      'to make an election for the purposes of this section'
      and insert
      'falling within subsection (7) above which is'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 16

      STOP NOTICES WHERE FURTHER DAMAGE IS LIKELY
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 42, leave out '("the original damage")'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, amendment No. 4, in page 12, line 14, at end insert—
      '(2A) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to specify in such a notice such works (if any) as are required in order to

      855
      render the damaged property reasonably fit to be used for the purposes for which it was used immediately before the damage became evident, not being—

      (a) emergency works; or

      (b) works the execution of which is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 5, 10 and 12.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Perhaps I should briefly give the background to this important, substantive amendment. Waddilove and many others recognised that stop notices were sensible and necessary, but he also said that, while a stop notice is in force, interim repairs should be carried out to a high standard. The amendment is designed to achieve that.
      Amendment No. 4 will ensure that, where a stop notice is in force, works must be undertaken to ensure that the property is "reasonably fit" to be used for the purpose for which it was used immediately before the damage became apparent. The wording comes form the Coal-mining (Subsidence) Act 1957. The standard is not as high as that which we apply to full repairs, which must now be done to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. As an interim measure pending final repairs, the amendment provides a sensible advance and should commend itself to the House.
      Mr. Barron: We debated whether we should lay down certain criteria on the use of stop notices and I am pleased that the Department has taken the issue on board and produced these amendments.
      Amendment No. 5 removes from clause 16 any reference to Lands Tribunal, about which there was also great debate in Committee. We are pleased that references to Land Tribunal will be removed from clause 16 by this group of amendments and from clause 17 by the next group of amendments. Therefore, British Coal cannot send to the Lands Tribunal rather than to the arbiter for the issue or revocation of a stop notice. We support the amendments because they will make the Bill more comprehensive than it was on Second Reading.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made, No. 5, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 17

      REVOCATION AND REVIEW OF STOP NOTICES
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 13, line 23, after 'if' insert `—(a)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already said that stop notices are necessary in certain eventualities. The Waddilove committee recommended their continuation and an annual review of stop notices. That has been incorporated in the Bill. Furthermore, if ground stability is expected for 18 months ahead, stop notices need to be revoked.
      It was pointed out in Committee that there was no absolute time limit for revoking a stop notice; therefore it is in principle possible even with annual reviews that stop notices could continue in force for many years if
      856
      continuing underground mining was possible. For that reason, I introduced these amendments to put an absolute three-year time limit on stop notices. Henceforth they will be allowed to continue beyond that period only if the claimant or any other person does not object.
      It may be sensible for all concerned to delay final repairs beyond that, but everyone's consent is needed for any further delay. I believe that a three-year period strikes the right balance between the claimant, who does not want to wait too long for those final repairs, and the British Coal Corporation, which might otherwise incur unnecessary repeat expenditure on repairs to a property or a house which may be damaged again. With that explanation, I trust that the House will accept the amendment.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Barron: I welcome the claimants' right to ask for a stop notice to be revoked after three years. In Committee we tabled an amendment to clauses 16 and 17 for the time limit to be six months less than that. We felt that it would not be right for the British Coal Corporation to keep issuing stop notices. Our timetable would have been two and a half years as opposed to three years. The Minister has clarified the criteria and the time scale.
      We welcome the amendment and hope that such notices will not be used very often and problems will be sorted out much quicker than in the past. British Coal will know that the issuing of stop notices will not keep the devil away from the door—it will have to take action. British Coal would have a maximum of three years and then it would have to sort out the damage to a person's property.
      Mr. Rowlands: In Committee I raised the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) had previously raised about the incredible stop notice that went on for years. I welcome the amendment proposed by the Minister.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 13, line 26, at end insert
      'or
      (b) at any time after the end of the period of three years beginning with the relevant date, the claimant and any other person interested request the Corporation to revoke it.'.
      No. 8, in page 13, line 47, at end insert—
      '(3A) In subsection (1)(b) above "the relevant date", in relation to a stop notice, means—

      (a) the date on which the stop notice was given; or

      (b) where one or more previous stop notices had been
      given in respect of the whole or any part of the damage, the date on which that notice or, as the case may be, the first of those notices was given.

      (3B) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other period as he thinks fit.'.
      No. 9, in page 14, line 5, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 18

      EFFECT OF FURTHER DAMAGE
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 15, line 4, after 'interested', insert—
      '(ff) any stop notice given to any person with respect to the original damage shall have effect in relation to the combined damage as if there were specified in it

      857
      as excepted works such works (if any) as may be specified in a notice given to that person by the Corporation;'.
      No. 11, in page 15, line 5, leave out
      'reference to remedial works in section 8(8)'
      and insert
      'references to remedial works in section 8(7A) and (8)'.
      No. 12, in page 15, line 12, at end insert—
      '(4A) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to specify in a notice under subsection (3)(ff) above such works (if any) as are required in order to render the damaged property reasonably fit to be used for the purposes for which it was used immediately before the original damage became evident, not being—

      (a) emergency works; or

      (b) works the execution of which is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.'.—[Mr. Eleathcoat-Amoryl

    Clause 27

      CROP LOSS PAYMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 19, line 10, leave out
      'taking by the Corporation of remedial action'
      and insert
      'discharge by the Corporation of their remedial obligation'.
      No. 13, in page 19, line 14, after 'amount', insert '(if any)'.
      No. 14, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.
      No. 15, in page 19, line 27, at end insert—
      '(2A) For each year or part of a year falling within the period mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Corporation shall be under an obligation to make to the occupier of the unit a payment of the amount (if any) given by the formula—
      P = R-S
      where—

      P is the amount payable under this subsection;

      R is any amount by which the occupier's yield from land used for pasture in that year or part of a year is less than it might reasonably have been expected to have been if the subsidence damage had not occurred;

      S is any amount by which his expenses in respect of land used for pasture are less than they might reasonably have been expected to have been if the damage had not occurred.'.

      No. 16, in page 19, line 33, leave out `the Corporation had elected' and insert
      'an election by the Corporation'.
      No. 17, in page 19, line 36, at end insert
      'and there shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2A) above any use of land for pasture which was or would have been so used after such an election as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 28
      PAYMENTS FOR TENANT FARMERS
      Amendment made: No. 29, in page 20, line 26, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
    Clause 29

      COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO MOVEABLE PROPERTY
      Amendments made: No. 30, in page 20, line 46, leave our from 'if' to end of line 47 and insert—

      '(a) the damage to the moveable property had been attributable to the negligence of the Corporation; and

      (b) subject to subsection (2) below, liability for any consequential loss resulting from the damage were excluded'.

      No. 31, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) Subsection (1)(b) above shall not apply to a claim made by a small firm where—

      (a) the moveable property was used wholly or partly for the purposes of the firm; and

      (b) the property affected by subsidence damage was property as respects which one or more notices had been or should have been given by the Corporation under section 44(1) below;

      and in determining the amount (if any) of so much of a payment as is payable by virtue of this subsection regard shall be had to the rules of law relating to remoteness and the mitigation of losses.'.
      No. 32, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'situated'.
      No. 33, in page 21, line 8, after land', insert
      'or, in Scotland, was on any land without lawful authority'.
      No. 34, in page 21, line 15, leave out `any damage to' and insert `the damage to the'.
      No.35, in page 21, line 23, at end insert
      "'small firm" has the meaning which would be given by section (Compensation for consequential losses of small firms) (7) above if the reference to the time when the property is affected by subsidence damage were a reference to the time when damage is caused to the moveable property'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 30

      COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OR DISABLEMENT
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 21, line 46, after 'as', insert 'would have been payable'.
      No. 37, in page 22, line 10, leave out
      'has the same meaning as in section 29 above'
      and insert
      'includes any act or omission which would, if the death or disablement had been caused by the negligence of the Corporation, have constituted fault for the purposes of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 31

      EXISTING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR WORKS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 23, line 15, leave out
      'shall not be deemed to be'
      and insert
      'are not to be regarded as'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 36

      REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS' EXPENSES
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 28, line 23, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Corporation shall also pay any costs or expenses reasonably incurred by the householder served notices under Clause 44 subsections (4) and (6) below.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 19.
      tAmendment No. 26, in page 28, line 31, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (2) above will apply to costs or expenses reasonably incurred by a local authority acting on behalf of claimants, or as landlords.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
      Mr. Barron: In view of the absence of provision for advice centres, we ought to consider seriously amendment No. 27. Members of the Committee will remember our debate on amendment No. 27 and the expense of a pre-mining survey. People would have the right to money to have their property inspected prior to undermining after

      859
      a notice had been issued. It would be proper to help property owners with their expenses should they seek advice on what to do when successive notices are served on them by British Coal. They will probably turn to an expert for an opinion on the best course of action, and the costs incurred should be reimbursed.
      In certain circumstances—if mining took place, the property was damaged and the claim was successful—the expenses would be reimbursed. Unfortunately, however, if mining is not the cause of damage, if claimants take expert advice because of successive notices and undermining does not take place or if there is insufficient damage to warrant a successful claim, the claimants would not be paid for any advice they took. An advice centre would have solved many of those problems.
      Amendment No. 26 extends reimbursable costs to include local authorities should they act on behalf of a claimant or take action as property owners. It does not seem right to exclude expenses incurred by local authorities when they are successful claimants. Unlike housing associations, local authorities have been given much responsibility for public housing in the past five to ten years. Housing associations can claim expenses incurred for legal advice on subsidence damage to their properties.
      Although local authorities may be successful in claiming damages against British Coal, they are not entitled to legal expenses. Most local authorities have a legal department, but they have a wide and varied agenda, and if they are involved in ensuring that claims against British Coal are successful, they cannot work on other matters. It seems unfair that local authorities should lose in this respect and not be able to claim their rightful legal expenses for successful claims against British Coal. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at amendment No. 26.
      Amendment No. 27 deals with the fact that people will seek advice should successive notices be laid against their property. In the absence of an advice centre, they should be protected when they have incurred reasonable costs in protecting their property.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Amendment No. 26 refers to expenses incurred by local authorities as landlords. I assure the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that nothing in clause 36 prevents a local authority from recovering the costs that it has reasonably incurred in pursuing a claim as a landlord. The hon. Gentleman may wonder why we cannot make that explicit in the clause, just to be on the safe side. That could be counter-productive, because the clause is widely drafted to catch as many types as possible of reasonable costs incurred by many different individuals and organisations. Therefore, if one includes references to specific organisations such as local authorities, one narrows the focus of the clause and casts some doubt on the scope of the clause. That is not in the interests of claimants other than local authorities. Therefore, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
      The amendment also refers to cost incurred by local authorities acting on behalf of claimants. That seems to be another attempt to require British Coal to fund advice centres. Therefore, for the reasons that I gave in an earlier debate, I am not convinced that that would be justified.
      Amendment No. 27 is drafted in extremely wide terms and seems to cover every type of expenditure, from a
      860
      record of the property's condition to major preventive works. I must stress that a clause 44 notice means that there is a risk but not a certainty of the building being affected by subsidence. Therefore, it would not be right or proper that all expenditure on all such building should automatically be reimbursable to the property owner or household.
      Clause 36(5) as presently drafted provides that nothing in the clause is to be taken as prejudicing the powers of the Lands Tribunal in respect of any costs or expenses of the proceedings before that tribunal. The provision means that the Lands Tribunal can award costs without regard to clause 36, but, alternatively, clause 36 could still allow a claimant to attempt to recover from British Coal costs that the Lands Tribunal had not thought fit to award to him, which is wrong.
      Therefore, amendment No. 21 does two things. First, it broadens the scope of subsection (5) so that not only does it apply to the Lands Tribunal but it brings arbitration procedures within its scope. That should commend itself to all hon. Members, who have been concerned to ensure that arbitration expenses are ranked in the same way as those incurred before the Lands Tribunal. Secondly, the amendment clarifies the relationship between the award of costs under a formal procedure and clause 36. Where any particular set of costs falls within the jurisdiction of a formal process, the outcome of that process is to be definitive as regards the recovery of those costs.
      That rules out the possibility, which I mentioned earlier, of a claimant having a second go at recovering costs under clause 36 which were denied by the Lands Tribunal. The amendment does not prevent a successful claimant from recovering reasonable costs which an arbitrator would not have been able to award. For example, a claimant might have had to employ a structural engineer or surveyor. Those costs will be fully reimbursable.
      Having given those explanations and expansions, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
      Mr. Meale: I merely wish some clarification on amendment No. 26. Has the Minister given way on the right of a local authority reasonably to reclaim money that it has spent in acting on behalf of a claimant? Secondly, as landlords—as the Minister knows—local authorities have thousands of houses, sometimes whole housing estates, which are submitted for claims to British Coal because of the damage throughout the estates. Would it be reasonable for the local authority to reclaim both amounts as the acting agent authority—first, as landlord and, secondly, acting on behalf of claimants resident in their district?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The only costs that will be reimbursable are those incurred by the local authority as landlord and owner of the buildings in question. For that purpose, the local authority is in exactly the same position as any other landlord or freeholder. As I explained, we did not think it right to place local authorities in a privileged position or draw specific attention in the clause to the rights of local authorities in that regard.
      Mr. Meale: A short time ago, when debating another part of the Bill, the Minister suggested that there was nothing wrong with local authorities establishing themselves as agents representing the people of their areas. That would not prevent the setting up of advice centres;

      861
      indeed, it would help to get rid of the problem of coal mining subsidence agents. If local authorities do that work it is surely reasonable to consider reimbursing them for it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If local authorities provide the necessary expert advice, reasonably incurred expenditure would be treated in the same way as if the advice or expertise were provided by any other professional organisation. The provision does not extend to general reimbursement for advice. If it did, we should slip back into the idea of reimbursing the expenses of advice centres, a course that the House has already rejected.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

    Business of the House
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker.]

    Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Meale rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that this is Report stage, not Committee stage, so he should not make a series of interventions.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I found the brief read by the Minister an unconvincing argument against amendment No. 27. As the Bill stands, a householder would not be able to claim expenses unless he or she were certain that damage to the property would subsequently take place. The only definition of a successful claimant is someone whose property has sustained damage. A long time will pass before anyone will know whether a property has been damaged. In that time, under clause 44 (4), householders will be served with notices about the continuing threat of damage to their property. But it could be two or three years before any damage is seen, and only then can one be a successful claimant. In the meantime it is reasonable for such a householder to seek legal advice or advice from a surveyor. At present, he or she would not know whether those expenses would be reimbursed under the clause.
    If a householder is continually served with notices under clause 44 (4) and as a result seeks advice, we suggest that any such reasonable expenses should be covered even if the property proves not to have been damaged. Will the Minister tell us why he considers that unreasonable? Why should a householder being served notices warning that his property may be damaged not be allowed reasonable expenditure for seeking advice even if he is not ultimately a successful claimant?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows, and indeed has said, that a successful claimant will be reimbursed reasonable costs such as those incurred in making a pre-survey of the condition of the property. Unsuccessful claimants, however, will not be reimbursed. The hon. Gentleman is
    862
    asking me automatically to underwrite all such expenditure which may be incurred by anyone served a clause 44 notice.
    Mr. Rowlands: No, a clause 44 (4) notice.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The fact that someone may be served a notice is no guarantee that their property will be damaged. Notices can be withdrawn. Mining plans can change. Even if mining goes ahead, only between 30 per cent. and 70 per cent. of properties in the area will finally be damaged. If all such expenditure incurred in advance of damage were automatically to be reimbursed, we should be paying for a great deal of nugatory expenditure.
    Mr. Rowlands: We are concerned specifically with subsection (4). A person will be served with a notice after 12 months, followed by a notice 12 months after that, and so on. If notices continue to drop into a householder's home, it is reasonable for him to take advice. If no damage is found to have been sustained, it is reasonable that the householder should be able to claim reasonable expenses.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about repeated clause 44 notices, but my observations still apply. Damage to the property is still only a possibility. I accept that in some areas it will be a probability. There is, however, plenty of scope for the property to be undamaged and for any expenditure undertaken to be nugatory. The arrangements that we have put in place seek to strike a balance between the understandable desire of claimants to take precautions before mining occurs and the need to protect British Coal from unnecessary cost.
    I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfyl and Rhymney believes that we have tilted the balance slightly in the wrong direction. There matters were discussed in Committee and I must ask the House today to endorse the judgment that we reached.
    Mr. Barron: We may wish to try to obtain satisfaction in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 19 in page 28, line 24, leave out 'and (4)' and insert 'to (5)'.
    No. 20, in line 39, leave out 'in relation'.
    No. 21, in page 28, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
    '(5) Subsection (2) above does not apply to any costs or expenses incurred in or in connection with any proceedings before any tribunal, court or other person if an order for their payment has been or could have been made by that tribunal, court or other person.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

    Clause 38
      DISPUTES: GENERAL
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 29, line 18, after 'or', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
    Clause 41

      DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY ARBITRATION
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 30, line 17, after 'person', insert 'independent of the Corporation'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 25.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that the arbitrator should be independent. It was always our intention that he should be. The Institute of Arbitrators takes suitable pride in its professional integrity and independence. To remove any doubt, I accept in full the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
      Mr. Barron: I thank the Minister. I have spent the past few weeks wondering how he would take away the words "independent of the corporation", he being somewhat doubtful of them in Committee.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The amendment underlines the independent nature of the arbitration that the Bill provides and which will be available when the scheme is approved. At what stage will there be access to the independent arbitrator? What will be the position of those who are currently undecided whether to go ahead under the present procedure, which is not the one approved by the Minister and which, as he mentioned in his opening remarks, involves the Institute of Arbitrators? There are those who will be undecided whether to go ahead with that procedure or to wait, as I would advise, for the amended procedure, which also includes placing the onus of proof on the coal board to show that the damage did not result from mining. There was considerable discussion on the matter in Committee where a great deal of valuable work was done. Can the Minister make it clear that nobody who is waiting for him to approve the scheme will find that they have passed a time limit merely by waiting until the scheme is fully in place before they pay their money and go ahead with arbitration?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that they need not wait, because the scheme has been running on a voluntary basis since the beginning of January this year. It was brought forward by British Coal after consultation with us; therefore, to all intents and purposes, the scheme is up and running. We shall be reviewing with British Coal the operation of the scheme later this year to see whether it is satisfactory and whether it can be extended in any way.
      The Bill allows, if necessary, the Secretary of State to put into regulations the exact details. We intend to do that only if the scheme is unsatisfactory or if British Coal or its successors backtrack in any way from the scheme as outlined. However, I confirm that early indications are good and that British Coal has agreed to remove any doubt about people's rights to go to arbitration.
      Some doubts have been expressed about the wording in the existing guidance leaflet and the notes attaching to the arbitration scheme. They will be altered and amended where necessary to make clear that people have the right to go to that arbitration scheme in appropriate cases.
      Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister. If someone were to take the Minister's advice and go ahead now using the existing scheme before the Bill is enacted, where would they stand in relation to the onus of proof?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They would not be disadvantaged in any way. British Coal will carry over existing cases
      864
      which are presently in train and treat them as though the new Bill were an Act of Parliament so that those claimants will not see the join.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when he says that people will have the right to arbitration, it will be a unilateral right under the existing scheme proposed by British Coal, and that British Coal will not have to give approval for that person to go to arbitration? That is an important point which we discussed in Committee.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was able to give that assurance in Committee and I am happy to repeat it. If some case, due to its complexity or technical nature, is more appropriately dealt with by the Lands Tribunal that will be a decision for the arbitrator and not for British coal.
      Mr. Meale rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it an intervention or a speech?
      Mr. Meale: A short speech.
      Mr. Speaker: This is a Report stage. Hon. Member should make their speeches and then the Minister should wind up and respond to them. It is not really a question and answer debate as is appropriate in Committee.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the Minister for the various assurances he gave in Committee. I am also grateful to him for repeating and expanding on a few of them in his reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Will he confirm in the context of the present debate the guarantee that he gave in Committee concerning cases that had been disqualified under the old six-year rule? Under the new arbitration procedure, will the people involved be able to have their cases reviewed?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that some difficult disputes have not been settled to the satisfaction of the claimants. It is appropriate that these should be dealt with under the new arbitration scheme, and British Coal has indicated that if they are brought forward, they may be settled in that way.
      Mr. Haynes: Suppose an individual—it could be a person from any constituency—has a problem of this sort, and he goes through the procedure that the Minister is introducing. What will happen at the end of the period of six years? Is the Minister saying that the new rule is in operation now? Under the new system, the burden of proof will be on the corporation, whereas, previously, it was on the individual. Will the corporation now have a duty to prove beyond doubt that damage was not done by the mining industry? Has the new six-year rule now come into operation?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill clears up the present ambiguity—the conflict between the two existing Acts. It lays down very clearly how the six-year rule will operate. If there are disputes or difficulties about interpretation, or about matters of fact, they can be referred to arbitration. The solution will not be at the unilateral say-so of the British Coal corporation.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42
      TIME LIMITS FOR CERTAIN DISPUTES
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 31, line 2, after 'or', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]
    Clause 43
      INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 31, line 24, after 'person', insert 'independent of the Corporation'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]
    Clause 44

      NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS ETC
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 33, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
      '(c) any information which is to accompany such notices.'.
      No. 39, in page 33, line 15, leave out
      'owners or occupiers of the land'
      and insert
      'person to whom the notice is to be given'.
      No. 40, in page 33, line 17, leave out first 'any'.
      No. 41, in page 33, line 20, leave out 'persons' and insert
      'any person who is the owner or occupier of any part of the land or is'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  Schedule 7
    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
    Amendment made: No. 42, in page 54, line 12, at end insert—
    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

      'Notices
      6A. Where any underground coal-mining operations proposed to be carried on after the commencement date can be regarded as a continuation of operations carried on before that date, nothing in section 44(1) (notices to property owners etc.) or section 45(1) of this Act (notices to local authorities) shall require the Corporation to give any notice with respect to those operations before the end of the period of one month beginning with that date.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      10.17 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have reached the end of the Bill's proceedings in this House, and I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee that examined it at an earlier stage. I thank them in particular for the constructive and co-operative way in which they examined the issues. The Bill started as a very considerable step forward, and some of the decisions of the Standing Committee have improved it. In its original form, it was a consolidating measure, bringing together two Acts of Parliament, and making a number of improvements. It also formalised claimants' rights to use their own contractors in a way that has been repeated this evening; allowed the reimbursement of all the reasonable costs incurred by claimants in pursuing a successful claim; clarified the very difficult issue of time limits in a way that is now clear and unambiguous; provided for households to be individually notified about British Coal's mining plans; provided a statutory basis for the informal resolution of disputes through an arbitration scheme; and placed British Coal's code of practice on a statutory basis. The Bill also imposes a duty on British Coal to safeguard property that is vacated while undergoing repair.
      866
      In Committee and again this evening, the Bill has been further improved. On the question of stop notices, an interim standard of repair has been laid down, and a maximum duration for stop notices has been declared. On the difficult issue of blight, a new clause requires British Coal to purchase property blighted by subsidence damage or its imminent likelihood where hardship would otherwise be experienced. As to the use of an own-contractor in undertaking repairs, there is clarification of, and an emphasis on, a claimant's right to use his own contractor, except in specified circumstances.
      The independence of the arbitrator has been affirmed, and the Bill now includes provision for small businesses to recover consequential losses.
      On Second Reading, I said that it was my intention to make a good Bill better. I believe that I have done that, with the assistance of the Committee and of the House.
      10.20 pm
      Mr. Barron: On Second Reading, although we welcomed this well-overdue Bill, we identified serious weaknesses and omissions that we hoped to rectify during the legislation's progress through the House. In Committee, the Minister accepted many of the arguments that we put, and tonight the Government presented a substantial number of amendments that cover the issues raised by my hon. Friends in Committee.
      We received an assurance from the Minister that British Coal will not be able to block a claimant's right to refer his case to arbitration. By removing that veto, the likelihood of referrals to the Lands Tribunal has been lessened. In view of the recent history of the Lands Tribunal in respect of subsidence claims, thousands of people will be breathing a sigh of relief that they will not have to travel that route in future.
      We welcome that advance, together with the amendment relating to the independence of the arbitrator. Taken together, those changes go a long way to meeting our concerns about the scheme. The Bill has also been greatly improved by the clause dealing with blight and the amendment on consequential loss. Many small agricultural businesses that suffer consequential losses, in terms of future yield, will be pleased with that improvement and we hope to see that new provision operating to their advantage in the near future.
      The rights of claimants to use their own contractors in carrying out repairs, and the introduction of criteria for stop notices and their revocation, have been strengthened. The latter issue was raised forcefully on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). His advocacy on behalf of his constituents has been most effective, not only in relation to the Bill, but during all his years as a Member of Parliament.
      People in all areas affected by subsidence will welcome the Bill. It was thanks to the pressure consistently exerted by Labour, both locally and nationally, that the Bill saw the light of day. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) waves his hand at me. I have before me a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 2 May 1989, in which he referred to the absence of any action in respect of subsidence damage, and said how awful it was that people had to pursue their claims through the Lands Tribunal, and risked substantial costs being awarded against them. He added:

      867
      "To make matters worse, we have now had the Opposition spokesman for mining, Mr. Kevin Barron, in the Sherwood and Mansfield constituencies, claiming that they will put matters to rights when returned to power".
      That is absolutely right. They may be jumping in on our legislative programme today.
      The hon. Member for Sherwood smiles. He will smile, because I also have here a letter from one of his hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading. Unfortunately, he was not with us today. He also wrote to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere on 27 April 1989—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] I think that it was the hon. member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, saying that he was enclosing
      "a copy of an article which appeared last week in the Mansfield local newspaper".
      At the end of the letter he said:
      "I can only say that I fully endorse what Kevin Barron says and hope that you will treat the issue more seriously."
      I am pleased that the issue has been treated more seriously, after the years that Labour has been arguing here and elsewhere that the matter should be put to rights.
      The Bill leaves the House as a superior Bill to the one first introduced and that is substantially due to the improvements that we promoted in Committee. I hope that it will not be too long before the people whose lives have been so affected by coal mining subsidence will see the benefits of this legislation when it has left the other place.
      10.25 pm
      Mr. Andy Stewart: Having campaigned with other hon. Members for the need for new legislation to deal with the effects of subsidence due to coal mining, I believe that the Third Reading of such a Bill closes a chapter and heralds a new beginning for communities living in coal field areas.
      The present methods adopted by British Coal as a result of the 1957 and 1975 legislation will soon pass into the history books. Also it is worth recording there for posterity my thanks, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for coal for bringing the Bill before Parliament and seeing it through its Committee stage, and shortly on to the statute book. Further appreciation should go to COALS and the united industry working party for their extensive work in the past three years.
      The new legislation will end the long delays, endless disputes and sheer misery that claimants endured under the present procedures. They will no longer be at the mercy of British Coal. Indeed, for the first time claimants will be in the game with the same number of players as British Coal, which previously acted as referee and moved the goal posts when it was opportune to do so.
      Once enacted, the legislation will be comprehensive, righting the injustices of the past. My enthusiasm for the new measure is shared by my constituents. Our acclaim for the Bill is because, from the beginning to the end, it encompasses every aspect of the consequences of mining. To start with, anyone whose property may be affected by mining must be informed by British Coal in advance of underground workings. Claimants will be clear that they have six years to initiate a claim after the appearance of damage, not after the ceasing of mine workings. Claimants
      868
      will be able to agree the use of their own contractors. Costs incurred in pursuing a dispute will be reimbursed if the claim is successful. The Government agree that consequential loss should be compensated. British Coal must purchase, or compensate for, property affected by blight. Last, but not least—and most important—is the right of claimants to unfettered arbitration.
      The end result of the Bill will be a fair settlement of claims at nil or minimal cost to successful claimants. It will ensure fair practice and fair play. This legislation goes that extra yard, providing fairness, respectability, honesty and understanding for all involved with coal mining subsidence, while recognising the major role of the coal industry in our national and local economies.
      10.28 pm
      Mr. Beith: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) felt it necessary to compliment himself so extensively because, judging with the much greater impartiality of someone who did not serve in Committee, I was going to say that it was a good Bill to start with and was significantly improved by the efforts of Opposition Members in Committee, of whom I was not one.
      The effort that a number of hon. Members put into the Bill was well justified and shows on the face of the Bill. Many of our constituents will be in a better position to raise difficult issues that are the source of great anxiety to them, now that a better procedure is in place, and now that there is a better basis for proof, and what I hope will prove to be a proper arbitration system, which, if it does not emerge via negotiation, can be brought into being through the provisions of the Bill.
      I am glad that the Bill was introduced. In principle, it was a good Bill from the start and it has been significantly improved by the efforts of those hon. Members who have devoted a considerable amount of time to it.
      10.29 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: As you know, Mr. Speaker, better than most, the public perception of the House is that it engages in a succession of gladiatorial contests, with printable insults hurled throughout our debates. We have dispelled part of that public perception this evening.
      Although a great number of hon. Members are not here, all those who are here have participated in the campaign over many years to right the injustice caused to our constituents by coal mining subsidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) suggested, tonight marks almost the end of the battle—but not quite.
      This is an excellent Bill which represents the culmination of years of debate, the distilled wisdom of the Waddilove committee and that of a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to respond as he did. I pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who I know has campaigned vigorously, but especially I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who throughout has adopted a thoroughly principled stance, as befits a Member of Parliament for his constituency.
      The Bill will provide a clearer and fairer framework for the hopefully speedier settlement of an injustice that causes enormous distress and heartache. My hon. Friend the

      869
      Minister and his predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was, worked hard to arrive at a solution that will deal with the injustice without imposing intolerable burdens on the coal industry, which continues to serve the nation in a relentlessly more efficient manner. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has been prepared to listen to amendments, not just from the Opposition but from his hon. Friends, has been warmly welcomed.
      In two key areas—arbitration and blight—the Government have decided to rely on reserve powers. It is right that the Bill should contain what earlier I called the rule of the threat of law. I hope that British Coal will now demonstrate a commitment to making its voluntary codes of practice on arbitration and blight work. The corporation is still somewhat wobbly and will certainly have to change its stance if the public are to be sufficiently reassured.
      In my constituency last October I finally secured British Coal's agreement to accept liability for some properties with a history of subsidence, but that acceptance needs to be followed up by speedy and sympathetic action. As employment in the industry continues to contract, so British Coal will increasingly require to win the good will of the areas in which it wishes to work. If it fails to implement the voluntary agreements, in the spirit and to the letter, there will be pressure to activate the statutory regulations that we have provided for in the Bill. I trust that that will be unnecessary, but the ball is firmly in British Coal's court.
      10.32 pm
      Mr. Lofthouse: I, too, very much welcome the Bill. It was a good Bill when it was introduced and it has been improved in Committee. However, there is still a major fault that could easily be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I greatly welcome clause 32(3), which, in line 46, provides that
      "the Corporation may make such proposals as to the materials for and the method of construction of the property as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence."
      I have always believed that if British Coal, the local authorities and the private developers had jointly considered providing rafts under properties where British Coal knew that it was going to mine, they would have saved themselves millions of pounds. Other organisations would also have been saved millions of pounds.
      Another worrying aspect is that, if a local mine is threatened with major expenditure due to subsidence, that mine's survival will also be endangered. We should consider prevention rather than compensation. Rather than refer merely to materials for construction, we should enable the Bill to confer on British Coal the right to agree with the builders or the local authorities that, if they expect subsidence, they will meet the costs of a raft. That would cost only £2,000 or £3,000 a dwelling but would save a great deal should subsidence occur. If the effect can be minimised when properties are erected, we should write that provision into the Bill.
      10.35 pm
      Mr. Hayward: The Bill is important not only to areas where mining still occurs but to areas such as those that the Minister and I represent, where coal mining ceased many years ago but which still suffer the problems of coal-mining subsidence.
      The Bill provides clarity for people who never expected to suffer from the problem of subsidence because coal mining had stopped so many years ago. It does not provide the certainty that they will gain from a claim, but it provides clarity in the form of the procedures by which to pursue a claim for subsidence and what is defined as subsidence. It provides clarity and a shift in the burden of proof. The burden is now on the Coal Board rather than on the applicant, which is especially important.
      Finally, because of an amendment moved by Conservative members of the Committee, the Bill now provides the right for all people to pursue arbitration without British Coal objecting. It is a paramount right for all individuals to be able to pursue a claim to the end, even if they are opposed by British Coal.
      For those reasons, I believe that we have a Bill of which we can all be proud, and I hope that it will move to another place.
      10.36 pm
      Mr. Meale: To conclude this phase of the legislation, I should like to thank a number of hon. Members from all parties who have been involved in trying to introduce new legislation to sort out the horrific mess. I also pay tribute to the Minister and to his predecessor who started the whole process, ably and gallantly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has done a magnificent job at every stage in Committee and in the House.
      We must also remember others who have battled and given advice, such as ex-Members of Parliament, some of whom until recently have actively given advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and me. Unfortunately, one—Lord Taylor of Mansfield—is no longer around, but we must pay tribute to him because he was never slow in coming forward to give advice to my hon. Friend, to me and to others.
      We should also pay tribute to the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—COALS—to the representative organisations of local authorities, to their officials and elected members from the all the authorities involved who have done a magnificent job in bringing the issue to the fore and in making progress towards a change on the statute book. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the united industries working party—which has been mentioned—which provided help.
      However, I must say to the Minister—as he would expect me to—that in such cases one sometimes experiences a little cloud of disappointment. I am disappointed especially about the issue of information, which I believe should be made available to everyone if real justice is to be achieved. I should have liked advice centres and a register of damage to properties included in the Bill. I hope that the other place will agree on that.
      The Bill has been a magnificent effort by everyone involved and especially those who are suffering damage to their homes throughout the coalfield areas. Their pressure,

      871
      persistence and search for justice will, I hope and believe, one day lead to a subsidence back to a better time for them.
      10.38 pm
      Mr. Frank Haynes: A fair amount of pressure has been lifted from——
      Mr. Hayward: Raising the flag.
      Mr. Haynes: No, I am not raising the flag.
      A fair amount of pressure concerned with mining subsidence has been lifted from the shoulders of hon. Members. The Bill is a step in the right direction. I want to pay the Minister a compliment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it steady."] In answer to my hon. Friends, I must say that the Minister has had a real education about mining. He has made it his business to get about the mining areas——
      Mr. Barron: Down the pits.
      Mr. Haynes: Yes. Who would have thought that the Minister would wear a mining helmet, knee pads and pit boots, and go into the pithead bath afterwards? Some of us did it for many years. We have real experience. We have also experienced the fact that the Minister has got to know about the industry and its problems. I hope that he will continue in that way until the next election when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches. We shall have a different Minister with responsibility for mining, but at the moment I am complimenting the present Minister for his work, especially on the Bill. He has listened to what we said in Committee and he has proved beyond all doubt that many of our points that were rejected in Committee are now accepted because they have been included today.
      However, I am a little disappointed about the advice centres. I said a little earlier that it may happen that in the other place ——
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Where you are going.
      Mr. Haynes: Shut up. The advice centres may be accepted in the other place.
      I want to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I remember his predecessor, Dennis Concannon, all those years back when pressure was being put on the Government to do something about the problem. Before him was our noble Friend Lord Taylor, who passed on last week. I have been to the other place and listened to some of his contributions on the mining industry, especially about mining subsidence, and about how people suffered in his day. He left this place in 1966 to go down yonder. The problem has been going on for a long while. At long last, something has happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Tory Government."] We have a Bill. We have been working together in the interests of our constituents. It is all right for hon. Members to bawl
      872
      from a sedentary position, trying to make a stupid political point. We have worked together in Committee to change the Bill and we have been successful.
      I said earlier that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was denied an opportunity today. In Committee, he agreed with many of our points. The Government kept him out of the Chamber today because he was going to agree with us on the advice centres. I am convinced that when the Bill comes back from the other place, it will contain a clause on advice centres. I want to know from the Minister what he intends to do about it. I hope that he will leave it there. If he does not, after the next election, we shall put it in. We shall put some other things in, too. Our constituents have suffered long enough.
      I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He is an ex-miner, like one or two of us. He is not a farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has got his way about his potato field. If it sinks in the middle he will get compensation. This Government have poured money in the farmers' pockets and here we go again. We are damned well agreeing with it again.
      If a farmer suffers because of mining subsidence, he is entitled to compensation or to have things put right. There is no doubt about that. That is fair. The Bill has become fair but it needs to be a bit fairer. I come back again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. He has a wonderful football team in his mining constituency. We play them twice a season. We kick them all over the pitch. The pitch goes up and down all over the place. It is a terrible pitch. I do not know whether the club has claimed for mining subsidence damage, but it ought to—it ought to make a claim and go to arbitration now that the Government are allowing people to do that.
      There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has used his mining experience at the Dispatch Box, but he has also had some good advice. He knows what I am talking about. The Minister has had all his advice free. My hon. Friend has had to pay for his, but he has had first-class advice. That is why he has been able to stand at the Dispatch Box on Report and Third Reading and to do a first-class job in Committee.
      We have all done our bit in this Bill, including hon. Members who served on the Committee such as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I remember some of the speeches that he made. The Tory Members did not like them at all, but they were good speeches. I am looking at my watch, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we won many of the arguments and we shall go on to win more. The important thing is that to achieve what we have in this Bill, never mind that the Tories are in control here at Westminster. We have worked together and made the Bill the way it is—and given the opportunity, we shall change it again.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme; and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  10.48 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be brief, because I do not intend to prolong the debate. I should simply like the Minister to confirm a few minor points. Paragraph (a) of the motion refers to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme. The Minister will confirm that that part of the Bill will come into operation immediately once the Bill is enacted. It provides a legal basis and regularises the position on such payments, which have existed since 1980.
  Paragraph (b) refers to grants to the verderers. Such payments have existed since 1973 and are covered in clause 4 of the Bill, which will come into immediate operation once the measure has completed its parliamentary passage, as will clause 3. Will the Minister confirm that that sum has not exceeded £10,000 per annum since 1973? Can he predict how that will continue?
  My last point is on the main part of the Bill and the restructuring and reorganisation of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. The question of the £10 million——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That goes beyond the scope of the motion before the House.
  Mr. Pike: This relates to the financial implications.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion relates to suckler cows and New Forest verderers.
  Mr. Pike: I shall leave the matter there. We can cover it in Committee on Thursday.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to make one small point about the suckler cow premium scheme. Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge his counterparts in the European Community to concentrate the support for the beef industry on the suckler cow scheme? In that way we shall serve the best interests of the beef industry and encourage that part of it which produces the quality beef for which this country has long had a good reputation. The special beef premium scheme does not necessarily go towards the production of beef that is entirely satisfactory to the housewife and at the end of the day the beef industry must satisfy her.
  We can produce absolutely top quality beef——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be my mistake, but I do not know what suckler cows have to do with beef production. Am I mistaken?
  Mr. Gill: With all due respect, beef does come from the suckler cow herds.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that when we expend these moneys on suckler cows we are doing a worthwhile job for the British beef industry because it encourages the production of quality beef which can be used substantially to improve the market for the industry's product. I make the plea that future support through a premium is concentrated on that part of the industry rather than on other parts.
  10.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Perhaps I can be helpful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the whole House by saying that although some wonderful scientific and implant techniques are available these days, it is usually handy to have a cow first before producing beef cattle or calves.
  I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said about the importance of the suckler cow premium system. In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we would expect the provisions on both the suckler cow scheme and the New Forest verderers' grants to come into operation as soon as the Bill is passed. I recollect that in no single year has more than £10,000 been granted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme; and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.

  Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Ways and Means]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of the supervision of grading of livestock carcases pursuant to any Community obligation and the payment of such fees into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister confirm that this makes preparation for payments that will commence from 1 January 1992?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I am happy to confirm that.
  Question put and agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Motion made, and Question put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    875
    That the draft Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

    EDUCATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    That the draft Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CUSTOMS CONTROLS ON BAGGAGE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8353/90 on abolition of controls and formalities on cabin and checked baggage on intra-Community flights and sea crossings; supports the Government's intention to ensure that Member States retain the right to carry out checks at the internal border to protect society against illegal importations of drugs and other prohibited goods, to control immigration and to counteract terrorism and other serious crime; and notes with concern the practical and infrastructural problems for airports that could be caused by the draft proposals.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

Eye Test Charges
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10.53 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Sadly, nothing illustrates the Government's real intention towards the national health service more than the disastrous decision in 1988 to abolish free eye tests. The Government simply ignored the warnings that abolition would have a serious effect on the health of large numbers of our nation. The then Secretary of State for Health refused to believe Labour Members when we told him that if he stopped paying for free eye tests, opticians would have to start charging.
Last week, in the debate on the national health service, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have been more wrong. In November 1988, the right hon. and learned Gentleman assured the House:
"the charge for the eye test will steadily disappear … that is my strong personal opinion."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol 139, c. 927.]
He has certainly been proved wrong, because today every optician charges between £10 and £17 for an eye test. As a result of that charge, hundreds of thousands of people face an increased risk of going blind or developing other serious diseases as they are deterred from visiting the optician by the cost of the eye test.
It was not just the Labour party who warned the Government about the potential serious situation that has now developed. The main professional body also advised against abolishing the free test and stressed its worthiness. A survey conducted by the British College of Optometrists in 1986 showed that of the 2,194 referrals made as a result of the eye test, older people—who formed a large group of those questioned—were particularly at risk from cataracts, macula degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. The college concluded that such people would be at risk if the free test were abolished as the charge would deter them from seeking such a test. Despite the survey and other early warnings, the Government refused to exempt pensioners from the charges. Since 1986, various surveys have been conducted which confirm the Labour party's fears that there would be widespread resistance to charges, particularly from the elderly.
In June 1990, the Consumers Association conducted a survey on eye testing and its findings were published in Which? The survey covered 1,094 adults who represented the public. It discovered that two in five people would go for an eye test less often once the charges were introduced, that two in five of those exempt from those charges thought that they had to pay and that nearly half those over 40 who were exempt from the charges also thought that they had to pay. The latter evidence was particularly worrying, given the increased incidence of eye disease in that age group.
The Consumers Association findings took into account the 7 per cent. increase in the number of eye tests as people rushed to beat the charges. However, even comparing the number of eye tests conducted in the year to April 1989 with those conducted in the year to April 1988, it is clear

877
that tests were down by about one fifth—more than 2·5 million in England and Wales—which represented a great reduction.
The survey concluded that, given that about one eye test in 20 results is a referral for medical examinations for eye disease or other medical conditions, that drop in examinations may have led to 125,000 fewer referrals with consequent repercussions for the early detection of diseases and possible increased long-term burden on the national health service. Therefore, the rather mean and irresponsible decision to charge for eye testing has not just caused untold human misery and pain—it has also been an economic mistake. Someone with an advanced disease is likely to cost the NHS far more than someone whose disease is diagnosed early.
Recently, there has been more evidence that the decision was bad. On 12 April, the Association of Optometrists published the findings of a major MORI survey on eye testing, which showed that the number of eye examinations had plummeted by one fifth since 1988. The survey, in which the Economists Advisory Group sampled 252 practices of members of the association, said:
"In comparing survey data on each quarter in 1988, 1989 and 1990, the … study estimates that eye examinations during 1990 were 20·9 per cent. fewer, on a national basis, than during 1988."
It stated that, in particular, there were an estimated 3·6 million eye examinations in the first quarter of 1989, just before the Government abolished universal free eye examinations. It said that, in the second quarter of that year—after charges were introduced—the number of estimated eye examinations shrank to 2·4 million, down nearly 32 per cent. Subsequently during 1990, estimated eye examinations have averaged 2·5 million a quarter, almost 21 per cent. down on the 1988 quarterly average of 3·2 million. Those are alarming figures.
A second survey, conducted at the same time and by the same group arid commissioned by the Association of Optometrists, showed that a majority of the public believed that eye examinations should be free to all, It is commendable that the public take such a good social attitude. The survey updated trend information spanning seven years and was carried out to establish public attitudes to eye examinations. It was conducted among more than 2,000 people aged 15-plus throughout Britain, and it concluded:
"The Government's decision, in April 1989, to abolish universal free eye examinations is not popular amongst the public. Nearly three-fifths (57 per cent.) of those interviewed said 'everyone should be able to have a free eye examination'. A quarter (26 per cent.) said free examinations should be available only to those groups currently eligible, namely children under 16, students aged 19 in full time education, those on income support or family credit"—
many of whom are currently entitled to free eye tests—
"those registered blind or partially sighted, those with glaucoma, those aged over 40 who have a close relative suffering from glaucoma, and those suffering from diabetes."
As might be expected, the public were socially aware and were concerned about the abolition of the free tests.
The British College of Optometrists, which carried out the work, said that in the two years since fees were imposed about 4 million fewer people had had their eyes tested. That represents a drop of about 8 per cent. per year. Any health Minister worth his salt would take those alarming figures seriously. Some 400,000 of those would have been referred for further medical attention and half of those referred would have been suffering from a major eye
878
disease such as cataract or glaucoma. Thousands more would have shown early warning signs of illnesses such hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and, in extreme cases, brain tumours.
When I looked to my constituency for a local angle, I worked out that, based on those figures, 10,000 of my constituents in Halifax would have gone without tests, and perhaps 1,000 of them would have missed important medical detection. That statistic is unforgivable, alarming and unnecessary in view of the amount of money that the Government have saved.
Today, I received a letter from Age Concern, which argues forcefully for the annual free test to be reinstated for elderly people. It is important to hear the opinions of the various groups concerned with vulnerable sections of society. Age Concern states in the letter:
"Older people may need encouragement to visit the optician as they tend to 'make do' with spectacles which are ill-fitting or which no longer correct their vision effectively. Eye test fees impose an extra barrier to older people who need to seek help."
There are many myths about who can and cannot receive free tests. Age Concern makes the important point:
"The Government has repeatedly argued that it aims to target help on people most in need, and that people on income support, and some priority groups, continue to receive free eye tests. Although older people whose incomes are just above income support levels can receive help, they have to put in a claim. Many older people are reluctant to fill in what are often long and complicated forms, and around one fifth of older people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled."
We know that that is often the case with elderly people.
The letter continues:
"The recent increase in the state pension means that married couples under the age of 75 now receive 10p over the income support limit and are therefore no longer automatically eligible for free eye tests."
Age Concern is obviously concerned that that problem should be solved.
Local opticians in my constituency, and those of other Members—I am sure that the Minister has been lobbied over this—have called for free eye tests for all over 65. That confirms the point that I have made, and that has been made so forcefully by others, that people in that age group tend to have the most problems with their eyes. It is important to stress that that age group is not automatically excluded. As Age Concern stated, because of the recent increases in state pension, many of them will not be.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind makes a similar plea in a letter that it sent me when it knew that I had this Adjournment debate, and which I received today. It states that all pensioners should be exempt and that research overwhelmingly shows that that group of people are those most vulnerable to eye disease. It quotes Professor John Marshall of the Institute of Opthalmology, who estimates that about 78 per cent. of the 78 to 85 age group have major eye disease. That is an important point.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind also states—this may pre-empt something that the Minister may say in his defence—that it commissioned a survey last year, which I believe the Government have used to support their claims that the issue was not important. The survey showed that people had been deterred from eye tests, but it also showed that a high number of people claimed to have had eye tests. It stated that the figure was similar to that in the Government's survey. We know that the

879
Government conducted a survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston challenged it in a debate after the eye test charges were introduced.
The institute states:
"The Government have seized this information to support their argument. We believe the figure is a substantial overestimate. The Government itself accepted that its survey had produced some degree of overestimate. It is also worth comparing what the Government survey claimed to have happened on NHS tests with what actually happened.
2·05 million adults claimed to have had an NHS test in the first quarter of 1990, but the records show the Family Practitioner Committees only paid for 0·624 million tests. Although some of this discrepancy might be explained by confusion as to the difference between NHS and private tests, it casts doubt on the credibility of the Government's survey."
I believe that, too, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that forcefully made point.
In the light of the overwhelming evidence from all sources, it is time for the Government to admit that they made a serious mistake in abolishing free eye tests. Abolition is leading to serious diseases going undetected. The Government must accept that thousands are at risk because of the cost deterrent. They are not being given medical care when they need it, and that cannot be in their interests. That makes a cruel nonsense of the purpose of the NHS, and it represents a false economy that can only lead to human misery.
Some of these diseases are very painful, and human beings are suffering needlessly. Some may even suffer early death as a result of their condition not being detected early enough. I urge the Government immediately to restore the free eye tests. It they do not, we can only assume that the impression that we were given when the Government changed their Prime Minister—that we were to have a more caring Government—was only a mirage, and that they are following the tradition of the last Prime Minister and her Administration, in whose hands we could not trust the NHS.
I promise the Minister and anyone who may take note of this debate that we shall keep pressing for free eye tests, which any socially aware and civilised society should provide for its citizens. If the Government do not restore them, on the election of a Labour Government we shall soon restore them. They are vital diagnostic tests which provide an early warning system for serious diseases. I urge the Government not to wait for the next Labour Government and to show that they really do care.
11.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I agree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that this is an important subject, and the House therefore has reason to be grateful to her for initiating this Adjournment debate, which allows us once again to test the arguments for the stance that the Opposition have adopted on the issue and the arguments that the Government deploy in defence of their position.
I wish to restate the policy that the Government have pursued and to set it in context. There is no disagreement between the Government and the hon. Member for Halifax, or between the Government and the optometry profession, about the importance of eye tests. The Government remain fully committed, as they have been throughout, to quality eye care and to ensuring that those
880
who go to opticians receive a high-quality professional service. That is why, in July 1989, the Government tabled regulations that set out factors that should be taken into account, by law, when a patient has an eye test. The law requires that a patient have a refraction test to measure the degree of correction required for good eyesight, and that patients be given a full examination of their eyes. That requirement was put on the statute book by the Government because we are committed to the principle that a regular eye test is an important part of health care.
The hon. Lady is concerned principally not with high-quality eye care but with who pays in most instances for such tests. Experience proves that on average the cost of a test is £12 or £13, and the Government believe that, for the great majority, it is entirely reasonable that the individual citizen should pay that sum for himself or herself. I suggest that it is inconsistent to argue, as many do, that taxpayers, and citizens in general, would be prepared to pay another 1p in the rate of income tax if the proceeds were directed entirely to health care. If the rate of income tax were to be increased by 1p, something in excess of £50 a year would be the yield from a man on average earnings. Yet that same person is not prepared to pay £12 every two years for an eye test.
The Government accept that people are prepared to pay an additional charge to ensure high-quality health care. For those who are in a position to do so, the eye test is a perfect example of an opportunity for people to make a contribution to their health care, recognising as the Government do the importance of a fully qualified person conducting an eye test. That does not detract from the Government's commitment to ensure that there are free eye tests available to those who can establish a need, either on the ground that they are adults with low incomes, or are children or students aged under 19 years, or to those who on health grounds attach an especial importance to regular eye tests. That is why free tests continue to be provided for the blind and partially sighted, for those who suffer from diabetes and for those and their families with a history of glaucoma.
Those who benefit from free eye tests on the ground of low income and those who so benefit on health grounds constitute 40 per cent. of the population. I accept that by and large the public would like to have the opportunity to contribute more to expanding the resources that are available for health care, and the eye test system provides exactly that. It seems entirely consistent with the Government's commitment to improve the quality of health care that is available and to ensure that the maximum value is squeezed out of the budget that is available to the national health service.
It is sometimes suggested that the free facilities amount in some sense to a concession that has been drawn from the Government under protest, but our record gives the lie to that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health devoted considerable effort in the early spring to promoting the importance of eye tests and the availability of free tests to those who will benefit from them. It is not a matter of 40 per cent. having an entitlement and the Government taking no further steps. We have undertaken a promotion campaign to ensure that those who are entitled to a free test have that fact brought to their attention.
The hon. Lady has said that an incoming Labour Government would restore the universal availability of free eye tests. That commitment, blithely given late on Monday night in the House, would cost such a

881
Government more than £100 million a year. The question that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends must answer is whether an extra £100 million a year available for improving and expanding the resources of the national health service would be best used in the way she described or whether it would be better used to improve the quality and availability of health care elsewhere in the national health service. I find it hard to believe that the highest priority for a marginal £100 million in the national health service is the restoration of free eye tests.
The only evidence that the hon. Lady used to substantiate her case this evening—her speech was entirely consistent with speeches made by Opposition Members ever since the change was made—was a series of surveys on which I shall comment briefly. The hon. Lady suggested that I should not get involved in an argument about which survey we embrace, and she sought to argue that there was some doubt about the credibility of one of the surveys that one of my right hon. Friends relied on in the past. I am content with that. I shall take the surveys published on 12 April by the Association of Optometrists on which the hon. Lady placed the greatest weight.
There were two surveys. The first was carried out by MORI which, not surprisingly, concluded that given the choice between paying for eye tests and getting them free, the British people would prefer to have them free. The hon. Lady considered that to be socially aware. I disagree. If someone offered me the choice between having something free and paying for it, I would choose to have it free. That is simply to ignore the reality of the choice and the importance of priorities in the use of resources within the national health service.
882
The other survey published on 12 April by the Association of Optometrists was undertaken by the Economists Advisory Group which sought to demonstrate that the take-up of eye tests has been substantially cut since charges were introduced in April 1989. I believe that that survey is subject to severe shortcomings. First, only 56 per cent. of the optometrists to whom it was directed responded to the survey. That leaves me wondering what evidence the other 44 per cent. would have produced. Secondly, the statistics that were quoted compared the period immediately after charges were introduced for the first time with the period immediately before the change—the last period during which they were free. It is not surprising that there was a boom in demand for eye tests just before the charges were brought in, and that there was a slump just after they were introduced.
If the hon. Lady reads the press release, she will find one piece of evidence that was not highlighted in the text. In the last two quarters measured by that survey, there was a sharp increase in the take-up of eye tests. In the third quarter of 1990, eye tests were up by 9 per cent. on the equivalent period in the previous year and in the fourth quarter of 1990, take-up was up by 16 per cent. over the same period in the previous year.
I do not accept that the evidence is conclusive that the change in funding has led to a long-term decline in the demand for eye tests. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of eye tests and we shall certainly continue to stress that, but I do not accept that her conclusions can be based firmly on the statistical information at her disposal.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).

  Lord Chief Justice
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the salary of the Lord Chief Justice in(a) 1987 and (b) January 1991 in current prices.

  The Attorney-General
  The salary of the Lord Chief Justice in January 1987 was £77,400, and in January 1991 £95,750. Had it kept pace with prices, it would now be £102,454·38.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General from what area appeals to the social security commissioners are heard at the Cardiff Docks venue; and whether he is satisfied that it is suitable for disabled claimants.

  The Attorney-General
  The social security commissioners hear appeals from the whole of Wales at the Crown Court in Cardiff which is situated at Williams way, Curran embankment on Penarth road, although claimants in north Wales may opt for the hearing of their cases in Liverpool. The Cardiff venue has been used since March 1987 and is considered well suited to the needs of disabled claimants.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals were made to the social security commissioners in each year from 1980 to 1990 in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is available only from 1985. The number of appeals made to the social security commissioners for each year from 1985 to 1990 in England, Scotland and Wales is given in the table.

  Social Security Commissioners

  Year

  Number of Appeals

  Total

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1985

  1,982

  590

  104

  2,676

  1986

  11,860

  406

  —

  2,266

  1987

  2,878

  654

  76

  3,608

  1988

  4,015

  779

  55

  4,849

  1989

  4,435

  716

  38

  5,189

  1990

  2,356

  394

  20

  2,770

  1 Including Wales.

  Mr. Usman Khalid
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the appeal of Mr. Usman Khalid (TH 9455/90) against refusal to grant entry clearance to the United Kingdom will be heard in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Once Mr. Khalid's representatives in this country have indicated to the immigration appellate authorities—IAA—that they are ready to proceed to a hearing, the IAA will aim to list the case at Leeds within five months.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Atlantic (Oil Exploration)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of the Falkland Islands and Argentina regarding oil exploration in the South Atlantic.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Falkland Islands Government have passed a draft of their revised minerals legislation to us. My right hon. Friend has not held discussions with either the Government of the Falkland Islands or that of Argentina regarding oil exploration in the south Atlantic.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards informing the International Atomic Energy Agency of any information his Department has regarding possible breaches of the non-proliferation treaty by other state parties.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We would draw the attention of the IAEA to any such information as appropriate.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers are vested in the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military use in the time between its regular inspections.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  If there were reason to believe that materials were being diverted from civil to military uses, the IAEA could request a special inspection.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications took place between Her Majesty's Government and the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iraqi efforts to operate a covert nuclear weapons programme prior to 15 January 1991.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made known on a number of occasions in various ways our concerns that Iraq appeared to be pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme in contravention of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place at the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding the movement of Iraqi safeguarded materials away from Tuwaila.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any formal discussion of this matter would have to take place in the IAEA board of governors. There has been no discussion of this kind.

  Iraq (Uranium)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment as to the quantity of highly-enriched uranium that is still in Iraqi hands.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is a matter for verification by the IAEA and the special commission to be established in accordance with Security Council resolution 687.

  Turkey (Human Rights)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning abuse of human rights in Turkey.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Since the return to civilian rule in 1983, the Turkish Government have taken a number of steps to improve their human rights record. We support those efforts and continue to encourage the Turkish Government to respect and abide by the international human rights conventions to which they are a party.

  United Nations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate a study of the evolution or development of the United Nations organisation to enable it better to attain the objectives of its charter in conditions of east-west rapprochement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The end of the cold war has enhanced the prospects of having the United Nations function as its founding fathers intended. We are considering ways in which it might do so.

  Israel
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the Israeli Government to reopen educational institutions in the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Israelis are well aware of our belief that the continuing closure of educational institutions, and in particular four universities, in the occupied territories is damaging—whether to Israel's reputation, the Palestinian community or the prospects for peace. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs urged the Israeli Foreign Minister to look again at this problem the last time he saw him, in London on 5 March.

  Visa Arrangements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reciprocal arrangements exist for British citizens to have two-year working visas and in which Commonwealth countries; and whether he has any proposals for renegotiating these arrangements.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are no reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries on two-year working visas. There are no plans to negotiate such arrangements.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the latest figures for the total contributions to Her Majesty's Government, and from which countries, to the cost of the United Kingdom's involvement in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Cash contributions paid and pledged so far include about £660 million from Kuwait, £565 million from Saudi Arabia, £275 million from Germany, £250 million from the UAE, £183 million from Japan, £15 million from Belgium, £15 million from Hong Kong and £8 million from Denmark. We have also received assistance in kind worth about £250 million from some 16 countries.

  United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 35, what refugee movements were anticipated by the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation, what requests were made to member states, and on what specific dates.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 11 January the office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator launched a regional plan of action in anticipation that a large number of people would be displaced by a conflict in the Gulf. This plan was based on 100,000 refugees arriving in each of Jordan, Turkey, Iran and Syria. UNDRO, on behalf of the United Nations humanitarian agencies and the International Organisation for Migration, made an urgent appeal for United States $38 million, 25 per cent. of their anticipated costs. Pledges from the international community quickly totalled some United States $58 million. The United Kingdom donated United States $1 million.

  On 5 April UNDRO asked donors for the remaining 75 per cent. of its 11 January appeal. On 11 April, as the full scale of the exodus in the north of Iraq became clear, UNDRO launched an updated plan covering assistance to 1·5 million refugees in Turkey and Iran. UNDRO estimated the cost of its programme at United States $400 million, subsuming its original appeal for United States $152 million. UNDRO is appealing to donors for United States $300 million immediately.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 5 April, the United Kingdom will be contributing up to £20 million to the appeals by the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies.

  Bombs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for new international protocols on the use of fuel air explosive weapons and daisy cutter bombs in warfare.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest estimate of humanitarian assistance given to Kuwaitis and Iraqis.
  293
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 19 April.

  I understand that since the launch of their appeals, the international donor community has given at least US$86 million to the UNDRO/UNHCR appeals and at least £33 million to the International Committee of the Red. Cross appeal. I am not able to provide complete information on the many other humanitarian agencies and NGOs who are providing assistance to the Kuwaitis and Iraqis either financially or at the practical level.

  Incendiary Weapons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to ratify the United Nations weaponry convention; and what is his policy towards accepting the optional protocol No. III, on the use of incendiary weapons in certain circumstances.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are still considering ratification of the UN weaponry convention. When we have reached a decision, we shall make clear our policy towards protocol No. III.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence Her Majesty's ambassador in Kuwait has concerning the allegations about the carrying out of reprisals against Palestinians in Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of Palestinians have approached Her Majesty's embassy in Kuwait about relatives who had been detained. The embassy is also in touch with international humanitarian agencies and human rights organisations monitoring the position of vulnerable groups.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 April,Official Report, columns 106–7, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what response he has had to his repeated expressions of concern about ill-treatment of Palestinians in Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Crown Prince of Kuwait has assured my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Palestinians will be dealt with in accordance with the law.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the reunification of Germany has cost the EC budget.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The gross additional cost on the EC budget during 1991 as a result of German unification will be about 1,915 mecu. That will be partly offset by higher German contributions which will total 1,230 mecu, making the net additional cost some 685 mecu.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by Government Department those subject areas that were previously open to answer via parliamentary 294
  questions, but which since June 1979 have been excluded as a consequence of legislation and changes in administrative arrangements.

  The Prime Minister
  Legislation and changes in administrative arrangements do not generally change the accountability of Ministers to Parliament except where the Government's successful programme of privatisation has removed a particular function from the public sector. In respect of "next steps" agencies, ministerial accountability is unchanged and parliamentary questions relating to executive agencies remain in order, although Ministers may arrange for chief executives to write to Members on matters which have been delegated to an agency in its framework document. I would encourage members to approach chief executives direct in the first instance on such matters, their aim is to provide a response which is as full and as helpful as possible on a timescale similar to that for a ministerial response to a parliamentary question.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No request for assistance with this appeal has, to my knowledge, been received, but arrangements could be made to draw it to the attention of Home Office staff.

  Emergency Planning College
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of running the Emergency Planning college in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Expenditure on the Emergency Planning college was not separately identified in the Appropriation Accounts prior to 1984 and details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For 1984–85 onwards the information requested is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  1,058,000

  1985–86

  1,159,000

  1986–87

  1,516,000

  1987–88

  1,368,000

  1988–89

  1,468,000

  1989–90

  1,685,000

  1990–911

  1,517,000

  1 Estimated.

  In addition, £226,000 and £670,000 were spent in 1989–90 and 1990–91 respectively on various capital projects in relation to the college buildings.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when was the last independent evaluation of the Emergency Planning college; and when the next such inquiry will take place.

  Mr. John Patten
  A study was carried out by management consultants between March 1990 and January this year into the ways in which the Emergency
  295
  Planning college might best discharge its wider remit to address questions of peacetime emergency planning, irrespective of any wartime connections, which was announced by the then Home Secretary in June 1989. There are no plans at present for any further external reviews.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom the management of the Emergency Planning college is accountable.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Emergency Planning college is part of my right hon. Friend's fire and emergency planning department and, as such is accountable through the normal management structure to him.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what increase has taken place in the staff of the Emergency Planning college since the expansion of its title and role.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since June 1989 when the Emergency Planning college's change of name and expansion of its role were announced an increase in staff amounting to 2·5 additional posts has been approved. These have not yet been filled. In addition, two posts on the college's original complement have been regraded at a higher level.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the percentage of crimes in the London borough of Wandsworth that have not been cleared up in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many sexual offences were reported in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years;

  (3) how many burglary offences were recorded as committed in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years;

  (4) how many crimes were recorded in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years;

  (5) how many cases of physical assault against a person were reported in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The requested information is contained in the Metropolitan police district annual borough tables, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car thefts were reported in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is for all thefts and is placed in the Library quarterly. Separate information for car thefts is not available centrally.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage of increase or decrease in crimes in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table. Tables giving numbers of offences recorded by the police in each borough of the Metropolitan police district are placed in the Library quarterly.
  296

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in the borough of Wandsworth

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change from previous year

  1986

  28,030

  –2

  1987

  27,423

  –2

  1988

  25,308

  –8

  1989

  27,955

  +10

  1990

  32,679

  +17

  Policing Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those sporting activities which are required to pay for policing costs;

  (2) if he will make it his policy for fox hunts to pay for the costs of policing their activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Police functions are carried out at public expense under the Police Act 1964; where special policy services—outside their normal functions—are provided, a charge may be made under section 15 of the Act, but this is at the discretion of the police authority concerned. Eligibility for charging depends on the nature of the police function, not the sport or other activity concerned.

  Mauritius
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the island of Mauritius have been deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of Mauritian citizens removed from the United Kingdom in each year since 1986 under the deportation process is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  14

  1987

  6

  1988

  6

  1989

  12

  1990

  8

  Stockton Borough Council
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him by Stockton borough council concerning the extension of a ban on drinking in public places to Yarm and Thornaby.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In March, Stockton-on-Tees borough council applied to renew its existing byelaws for prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating liquor in the same areas which were designated during the two-year experimental period. Officials wrote to the council on 26 March, giving provisional approval to the byelaws. We have not received any proposals to extend the byelaws to additional areas, but we understand that the council is considering making such an application at a later date.

  Prison Education Budgets
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on why the budgets for education in prison establishments for 1991–92
  297
  were not allocated on a full-year basis; and what plans are being made for the future budgeting of education, establishment by establishment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Following the reorganisation of the prison service, prison establishments were advised in February of an interim allocation of funds for education purposes to cover their first quarter's expenditure in 1991–92. This was to enable the new area managers to obtain further specialist advice to ensure that full year's budgets, to be notified to establishments in June, make the most effective use of overall educational provision for the prison service. In future, area managers will be involved at an earlier stage in the budget-setting process and the agreed overall provision will be allocated between establishments by area managers at the beginning of the financial year, following consultation with governors and the relevant specialists.

  Prison Education
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the future of the financing of education in prison establishments currently funded through local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 21 March at columns 432–34. Future arrangements for the funding of education in prison establishments will be determined in the light of the Government plans for the reorganisation of further education as a whole, on which a White Paper is to be published shortly.

  Kurds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to make special provision to grant Kurds political asylum in United Kingdom.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Year

  Free Pardons

  Remission of imprisonment

  Remission of Borstal training. Youth custody, detention in a Young Offender Institution

  Remission of detention

  Remission of fine

  1980

  13

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1981

  12

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1982

  9

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1983

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  6

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1986

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  11

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1988

  8

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1989

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Nigeria and Ghana
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance in commerce and in education is being provided for Nigeria and Ghana.
  298
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not consider that the large-scale resettlement of Iraqi Kurds in Western countries is an answer to the current problem. All asylum applications made in the United Kingdom are considered in accordance with the United Nations convention on refugees.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the maximum security alert at Lewes prison on 27 March; and if he will list for the last 12 months the number of times Lewes prison has been put on maximum security alert; and for what reasons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Following the discovery of live ammunition at Lewes prison, the governor made arrangements for a full scale search of the prison buildings and grounds. This search took place on 26 and 27 March. Investigations are in progress. There were full alerts called to carry out extensive searching at Lewes on the following occasions during the last 12 months: 22 November 1990; 2 to 6 December 1990.

  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list separately for each year from 1980 to 1990 the number of cases in which the royal prerogative of mercy was exercised to grant(a) a free pardon, (b) a remission of imprisonment, (c) remission of Borstal training, youth custody and detention in a young offenders' institution, (d) remission of detention and (e) remission of fine, on grounds affecting the original conviction, in cases other than those involving road traffic offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 18 April 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mrs. Chalker
  Assistance to education in Nigeria in 1990–91 covered nine separate projects at a total cost last year of some £1·37 million. There is no aid currently specifically to commerce. In Ghana total education costs amounted to about £0·9 million in 1990–91, including training in Britain. In commerce, a United Kingdom training award is available in 1991 to the Ghana Export Promotion Council. These figures do not include our wide-ranging programmes of United Kingdom training in
  299
  other sectors amounting to a further £2·5 million for Nigeria and £1·4 million for Ghana. Both countries have better developed education systems than many others in Africa.

  Famine, Africa
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is currently giving to relieve famine in Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have committed £152 million in emergency assistance to Africa since the beginning of 1989. On 15 April, I announced a new pledge of assistance worth £33 million. Most of this will go to the Horn of Africa, where the famine is most acute. It will be in addition to the £33 million we have already provided to the region since last September.

  The Gulf
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance the Government are providing for Jordan and other neighbouring states affected by the Gulf war.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As our share of the EC special allocation to countries affected by the Gulf crisis we are providing £20 million to Jordan, £23 million each to Egypt and Turkey, £8 million to the occupied territories and £21 million to Israel. Since the invasion of Kuwait the United Kingdom has provided £18·65 million in humanitarian assistance through bilateral and EC channels. In addition we have committed £21·7 million to alleviate the plight of the Iraqi refugees. In the current financial year we expect our normal bilateral assistance to amount to £5·25 million for Jordan, £11 million for Egypt, £5 million for Turkey and some £1·5 million for the occupied territories.

  Alternative Crops
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made to the Overseas Development Administration in respect of alternative commercial crops in Commonwealth countries whose economies rely significantly on the export of sugar and bananas, respectively.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are helping the eastern Caribbean countries—Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent—whose economies rely heavily on banana exports, with a number of agricultural diversification projects.

  Environment Conference, Brazil
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to(a) delegations from less-developed nations and (b) non-governmental organisations based in the United Kingdom, to assist their attendance at the United Nations conference on environment and development, to be held in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have offered £32,000 to the voluntary fund established to help finance participation by developing countries in the conference and its preparatory 300
  process. The United Nations General Assembly has not yet decided on the participation of non-governmental organisations in the conference.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Victoria Tower
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his most recent estimate of the cost of the scaffolding erected at the Victoria Tower.

  Mr. MacGregor
  £1·5 million.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the building societies which will not be repaid and (b) the amounts of tax involved, under the proposals referred to in paragraph 4.22 of the 1991 Financial Statement.

  Mr. Maude
  It would not be appropriate to provide information about the tax affairs of individual taxpayers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what extent the view of Inland Revenue that the disputed extra tax paid by building societies does not in fact involve the payment of extra tax, is based on the ground that building societies account on an accruals basis while government accounts on a cash basis;

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham of 15 April Official Report, columns 9–11, about the way building societies account for tax, whether his answer was based on the premise that the Inland Revenue would not receive extra tax or that building societies would not pay extra tax.

  Mr. Maude
  The 1986 change from the old basis on which building societies accounted for tax annually on interest accruing in their accounting year to the present system under which they account quarterly for tax on interest and dividends paid does not mean societies have paid extra tax. The change affected the time of payments, not their amounts. Interest and dividends paid during transitional periods have been subjected to a single charge to tax.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions on which the Government publicly acknowledged the effect that a judgment adverse to the Inland Revenue in the Woolwich Equitable building society case might have on other building societies; and what the likely effect was judged to be on each such occasion.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter in this year's Budget statement. There has been no previous occasion of a similar Government statement on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of where the £250 million for 1986 transitional provisions: building societies, shown in table 4.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1991–92, comes from.
  301
  Mr. Maude
  The figure is the estimated amount, net of corporation tax, which will not be repaid to various building societies following my right hon. Friend's Budget proposal contained in clause 50 of the Finance Bill.

  Separate Taxation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a requirement for the tax affairs of a wife and a husband to be dealt with by separate tax offices when one does not earn money outside the home.

  Mr. Maude
  The tax offices dealing with the tax affairs of a wife and a husband are, following the introduction of independent taxation, determined separately by reference to the nature of their respective incomes.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on reduced interest rates in European Community countries which discriminate in favour of(a) small businesses and (b) farming businesses; whether such arrangements will be permitted in the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Information on state aids in the Community, including in the small firms and agricultural sectors, is published in the European Commission's reviews of state aids in the Community. All state aid schemes are notifiable by member states to the Commission; the Commission then decides whether they are compatible with the treaty of Rome.

  Judicial Review
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many times in the last three years the Inland Revenue has experienced judicial review; how often it lost; and how often building society tax was involved;

  (2) whether he has decided that all future potential gainers from judicial reviews of Inland Revenue decisions must make their own applications concurrently.

  Mr. Maude
  There have been 15 applications for judicial review involving the Inland Revenue in the last three years, of which four have been granted. Only one application involved building society interest. It is for individual taxpayers to decide whether or not to apply for judicial review of an Inland Revenue decision.

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £40 million to be collected by the Pools Promoters Association for the proposed Foundation for Sport and the Arts will be taken from the total money now allocated to the payment of prize.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This is a matter for the pools promoters, but I understand that the proposal is that a proportion of the total remittance submitted by clients will be held in trust for the foundation.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the European Community total gross domestic product was, at the latest available date, accounted for by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Italy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data for GDP in the European Community are published by the OECD in "Main Economic Indicators".

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was accounted for by interest expenses in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany, respectively, in the last three years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data for interest payments for these countries are not available. Data for receipts and payments of investment income are published by the IMF in "Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook".

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of value added tax charged in(a) France and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The value added tax rates charged are:

  France

  Germany

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Standard

  18·6

  14·0

  Increased

  22·0

  —

  Reduced

  2·1, 5·5

  7·0

  Earnings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time, part-time, male and female workers earn below the PAYE threshold in the northern region and in each of the counties within the region.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is not available.

  Services Sector
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total amount of the wages and salaries of the economies of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany is accounted for by the wages and salaries of the services sector, respectively, in the latest available year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest available figures for these countries analysed by industry of employment are shown under the heading "Compensation of employees" in the annual OECD publication "National Accounts Detailed Tables Volume II (1976–1988)" of which copies are available in the Library of the House—see pages(a)(b)(c)

DEFENCE

  Aldermaston and Burghfield Housing
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what refurbishments and repairs are being carried out to Ministry of Defence houses at the AWE, Aldermaston and
  303
  Burghfield common estate; and when he anticipates these houses to be up to the standards set down for council and housing association properties.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current ongoing maintenance programme at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield covers both refurbishment and repair. The cost of maintaining the stock of the 775 civilian houses and flats at these locations will be £1,400,000 in the financial year 1991–92.

  On the matter of standards, the Ministry of Defence is not a housing authority and not in consequence bound by the standards of the authorities referred to. Housing is provided at AWE for both essential Ministry of Defence police staff and to facilitate recruitment and retention of other staff. The houses are all maintained to an acceptable standard.

  Main Battle Tanks
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new main battle tanks he will be ordering to replace Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No decision on numbers of equipment for our future main battle tank fleet has yet been taken.

  MV Antares
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received the draft report on the sinking of the Antares; for what reasons he has not yet been able to publish the findings; when he expects to publish the report or its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The report of the Royal Navy board of inquiry is being considered as a matter of priority. However, the report is very comprehensive and we have an obligation to all those concerned to ensure that the full legal and other implications of its findings are thoroughly studied. A summary of the findings will be released as soon as this process has been completed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Clothing Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he intends to take to assist the clothing manufacturing industry in the Easington constituency during the present recession.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are no plans to introduce assistance measures for the clothing manufacturing industry in the Easington constituency. Firms in the constituency are eligible for assistance under the regional selective assistance scheme as well as the Department's R and D and enterprise initiative consultancy measures.

  Trade Descriptions Act
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will bring forward proposals to implement the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading concerning bringing under the Trade Descriptions Act the claims made in letters from timeshare companies.

  Mr. Leigh
  The amendments to the Trade Descriptions Act proposed as a result of the current review, including 304
  those arising from the Director General of Fair Trading's report on timeshare will be implemented as soon as parliamentary time is available.

  Tootal Group
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Office of Fair Trading is considering the practice of companies capitalising pension fund surpluses in order to establish a higher rating or obtain higher funding on its consideration of the takeover bid for the Tootal Group plc; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In reaching his decision on whether to refer the proposed acquisition by Coats Viyella of Tootal Group to the MMC my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into consideration the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The director general's advice takes all relevant issues into account.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he was asked to approve British entries on the list of specially designated nationals of Iraq issued by the United States Government on 1 April.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways he has monitored and encouraged the progress of the refrigeration industry to move away from CFCs; and what study he has made of acoustic refrigeration.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department regularly meets producers and users of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances to discuss alternative options for when production of these substances is phased out over the next few years. These contacts include the development and use of substitutes in refrigeration. My Department participates in relevant United Kingdom conferences and international fora and last year published through HMSO a study commissioned from independent consultants "CFCs and Halons: Alternatives and the Scope for Recovery for Recycling and Destruction".

  The Department offers support to industry for development of environmentally cleaner technologies, for example through the enterprise initiative and the environmental technology innovation scheme, the environmental management options scheme and Euroenviron. It has made no formal study nor received any project proposal relating to acoustic refrigeration. However, I understand that while this technique may be being developed for use in space, the view of the refrigeration industry is that the high engineering standards it requires currently render it economically unviable for more general application.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the total output of manufactured goods of the EC was, at the latest available date, accounted for by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany and (d) Italy.
  305
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is in the table.

  EC output1 of manufacturing2 products in 1987

  Output (ecus million)

  Percentage of total EC output

  United Kingdom

  135,306

  15·3

  France

  153,449

  17·4

  Federal Republic of Germany3

  287,196

  32·5

  Italy

  152,287

  17·2

  1 Output is defined as gross value added at market prices.

  2 NACE classification—section 3.

  3 Federal Republic of Germany as in 1987.

  Data source: EUROSTAT.

  Environment Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department was represented at the expert seminar on packaging and the environment held in Sweden on 7 to 8 February.

  Mr. Leigh
  Yes, my Department was represented and presented a paper to the seminar which was arranged in the framework of the United Nations Environment Programme/International Energy Office cleaner production programme.

  Clean Production Technologies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake a collaborative initiative with the Industry and Environment Office of the United Nations environment programme on clean technologies for production.

  Mr. Leigh
  Her Majesty's Government are already participating in the United Nations Environment Programme/International Energy Office's cleaner production programme. In September 1990, the Government hosted a United Nations Environment Programme seminar at Canterbury on the subject of "Cleaner Production". The seminar was opened by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment; officials both from my Department and the Department of the Environment also participated.

  Foundries
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what complaints he has received since the beginning of 1990 about state subsidies to companies in the foundry industry in other European Community countries and in Japan; and what action has been taken in connection therewith.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  One complaint has been received from a British company about alleged state subsidies to the iron foundry industries in France, Italy and Spain. My Department raised the matter with the European Commission which is responsible for monitoring state aids in the Community. I understand the Commission is pursuing the matter and is in contact with the company concerned.

  Cornish Tin Mining
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department had any discussions with Carnon Holdings about the effect of the withdrawal of his 306
  Department's funds for tin mining on the holding of a 90-day consultation period between the company and the work force employed in the tin mines.

  Mr. Leigh
  The content of the numerous discussions with Carnon Holdings Limited is confidential. The terms and conditions of employment in Carnon, including redundancy payments and pension rights, are a matter for the company.

  Petroleum Coke
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received about the use of petroleum coke in domestic fireplaces; whether the sulphur emissions of this fuel conform to the recommended levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 18 April 1991]: My Department has received representations from 13 organisations seeking controls on the supply of petroleum coke for domestic use. We have received very few complaints from users of this fuel.

  The maximum sulphur content of fuels authorised for use in smoke control areas is 2 per cent. I understand that some varieties of petroleum coke have a higher sulphur content.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Evening Standard
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will obtain for his Department's library a copy of the Evening Standard "London Life" article by Keith Dovkants and Bruce Kemble of 16 April.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department regularly purchases the Evening Standard, including the edition referred to. Relevant articles are placed in the Library.

  Special Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list for each of the years from 1984 to 1990 the number of special classes or units in(a) primary schools in each local education authority and express this as a proportion of all primary schools in the local education authority and (b) secondary schools in each local education authority and express this as a proportion of all secondary schools in the local education authority;

  (2) if he will list for each of the years from 1984 to 1990 the number of pupils with statements on the register of special classes in each local education authority (a) spending at least 70 per cent. of their time there and (b) spending less than 70 per cent. of their time in special classes, and express these figures as percentages of children registered in special classes in the local education authority;

  (3) if he will detail for each year from 1984 to 1990 the number of children in each local education authority in England newly receiving special educational provision under a statement in ordinary schools and express this (a) as a percentage of all new statements made by the local education authority in that year and (b) as a percentage of all current statements maintained by the local education authority;
  307
  (4) if he will detail for each of the years from 1984 to 1990 the number of children under the age of five years with a statement of special educational need in each local education authority in England and express this as a percentage of all children of pre-school age in the local education authority;

  (5) if he will detail for each local education authority in England the number of pupils with statements of special educational need recorded as attending maintained and non-maintained special schools and express this (a) as a percentage of all school children in the local education authority and (b) as a percentage of children with a statement in the local education authority, for each of the years from 1983 to 1989;

  (6) if he will list for each year from 1984 to 1990 the number of children with statements of special educational needs newly placed in special or independent schools by each local education authority in England and express this as a proportion of the total number of new statements made by each local education authority;

  (7) if he will list for each year from 1984 to 1990 the number of children in each local education authority in England transferred from special schools to mainstream schools and express this (a) as a proportion of the special school population in each local education authority and (b) as a proportion of children with statements in the local education authority;

  (8) if he will detail for each of the years from 1984 to 1990 the number of children with statements on the register of ordinary classes in each local education authority in England and express this (a) as a percentage of all children with statements in the local education authority and (b) as a percentage of all pupils in the local education authority;

  (9) if he will list for each year from 1984 to 1990 the number of children in each local education authority in England awaiting the provision specified in their statement and express this (a) as a percentage of all new statements made in that year by the local education authority and (b) as a percentage of all statements maintained by the local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Heads
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the appointment of school heads without the use of inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Eggar
  The selection of head teachers is a matter for local education authorities and governing bodies in schools without delegated budgets, and for governing bodies, after considering any advice from the chief education officer, in schools with delegated budgets. In reaching decisions the Government would expect LEAs and schools to take account of all relevant considerations.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report pupil-teacher ratios for primary and secondary schools in England and Wales.

  Mr. Fallon
  The pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January 308
  1990 were 22·0 and 15·3 respectively. Similar information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list figures for(a) recurrent and (b) capital spending by the Government on adult education for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Eggar
  Central Government expenditure in respect of adult education bodies, REPLAN and PICKUP, is given in the tables. It is not possible to express expenditure in real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100. Instead the figures are given in cash terms and at 1978–79 prices.

  Recurrent expenditure—£ million

  Year

  Cash terms

  1978–79 prices

  1978–79

  1—

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1—

  1980–81

  1—

  1—

  1981–82

  1—

  1—

  1982–83

  11·207

  6·909

  1983–84

  13·458

  7·930

  1984–85

  14·635

  8·208

  1985–86

  18·079

  9·616

  1986–87

  23·470

  12·–67

  1987–88

  23·614

  11·530

  1988–89

  27·612

  12·551

  1989–90

  22·485

  9·605

  1990–912

  25·357

  10·050

  1Expenditure on adult education not separately identified.

  2Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. From 1986–87 onwards, the figures include grants allocated for continuing education related to the development of PICKUP-type provision by the UGC/UFC and the NAB/PCFC.

  2. Expenditure on REPLAN and PICKUP includes grants to the FEU.

  3. From 1989–90 onwards, responsibility for payment of grants to English universities' extra-mural departments was transferred from the Department to the UFC.

  4. The expenditure in 1990–91 takes account of the transfer from the Department to local education authorities of some of the responsibility for funding the English districts of the WEA.

  Capital expenditure

  £ million

  Cash terms

  1978–79 prices

  1978–79

  1—

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1—

  1980–81

  1—

  1—

  1981–82

  1—

  1—

  1982–83

  0·029

  0·018

  1983–84

  0·015

  0·009

  1984–85

  0·052

  0·029

  1985–86

  0·074

  0·039

  1986–87

  0·044

  0·023

  1987–88

  0·014

  0·007

  1988–89

  0·041

  0·019

  1989–90

  0·043

  0·018

  1990–91

  0·018

  0·007

  1Capital expenditure not separately identified.

  309

  Expenditure supported through education support grants

  Expenditure supported through local education authority training grants scheme

  £ million

  £ million

  Cash terms

  1978–79 prices

  Cash terms

  1978–79 prices

  1978–79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  3·011

  1·602

  1·224

  0·651

  1986–87

  5·512

  2·834

  1·224

  0·629

  1987–88

  4·878

  2·382

  2·030

  0·991

  1988–89

  2·646

  1·203

  2·155

  0·980

  1989–90

  5·078

  2·169

  3·300

  1·410

  11990–91

  3·917

  1·553

  2·682

  1·063

  1 Provisional.

  Student:Staff ratios

  England

  Academic years 1978–79 to 1988–89

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Polytechnics

  Higher education

  8·4

  8·9

  9·7

  10·3

  11·1

  11·5

  12·0

  12·4

  12·9

  13·7

  Further education

  8·3

  7·6

  9·1

  10·7

  11·1

  13·0

  11·6

  12·2

  12·8

  12·3

  All

  8·4

  8·8

  9·7

  10·3

  11·1

  11·6

  12·0

  12·4

  12·9

  13·6

  Other establishments (Note 1)

  Higher education

  7·3

  7·6

  8·4

  8·7

  9·0

  9·6

  9·7

  10·2

  10·5

  12·3

  Further education

  9·4

  9·1

  9·2

  9·6

  9·5

  9·8

  10·3

  10·6

  10·8

  11·3

  All

  8·8

  8·8

  9·0

  9·3

  9·4

  9·8

  10·2

  10·6

  10·8

  11·4

  Universities (Great Britain)

  9·3

  9·4

  9·6

  10·1

  10·2

  10·3

  10·3

  10·5

  10·7

  11·4

  Notes:

  1. Excludes voluntary and direct grant colleges in all years up to and including 1987–88. 1988–89 includes those former voluntary and direct grant colleges now funded by the PCFC.

  Source: Annual Monitoring Survey for polytechnics and other establishments, University Statistical Record for universities.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what number of higher education academic and non-academic staff have(a) taken early retirement and (b) accepted redundancy in each year since 1978–79; and what was the total cost to the Government for higher education academic and non-academic staff taking early retirement or accepting redundancy for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Academic year

  Academic and related staff

  Non-academic staff

  Number

  Cost

  Index

  Number

  Cost

  Index

  £ million

  £ million

  1981–82

  1,600

  35

  100

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1,100

  31

  83

  1,800

  19

  100

  1983–84

  1,000

  30

  77

  400

  6

  30

  1984–85

  700

  23

  56

  550

  9

  43

  1986–87

  335

  10

  22

  385

  4

  18

  1987–88

  775

  29

  61

  370

  6

  25

  1988–89

  1,225

  49

  97

  360

  8

  31

  11989–90

  1,080

  25

  46

  295

  3

  11

  1 21990–91

  815

  15

  26

  65

  1

  3

  1 Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are at 50 per cent, reimbursement rate.

  2 Figures for 1990–91 are for year to date.

  Information on the numbers of staff in polytechnics and higher education colleges who took early retirement before the creation of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council is not collected centrally.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were staff-student ratios at(a) universities, (b) polytechnics and (c) colleges of higher education in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data are not available in the form requested for 1978–79. Student-staff ratios are given in the table for universities, polytechnics and other establishments. Data are given for higher education (HE) and further education (FE) separately and together (ALL) for polytechnics and other establishments.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Available information for universities is shown in the table. This relates to claims met by the University Grants Committee and the Universities Funding Council for reimbursement of premature retirement and redundancy compensation since 1978–79. Information is not collected centrally about premature retirements and redundancies funded from universities' own resources.

  Costs of early retirement and redundancy in polytechnics and higher education colleges were met, up to1988–89, from the redundancies/premature retirement

  311
  compensation schemes advanced further education open pool. Available information for the years 1982–83 to 1987–88 is as follows:

  Academic year

  Cost

  Index

  £ million

  1982–83

  3

  100

  1983–84

  6

  191

  1984–85

  6

  182

  1985–86

  8

  230

  1986–87

  10

  278

  1987–88

  9

  238

  From 1989–90, claims met by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council have been as follows:

  Academic year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Academic staff

  271

  411

  Non-academic staff

  272

  349

  Cost (£ million)

  3

  4

  Index

  100

  124

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list figures for the average salary of full-time lecturers at(a) universities, (b) polytechnics and (c) colleges of higher education for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100;

  (2) if he will list figures for the average rise in salary of full-time lecturers at (a) universities, (b) polytechnics and (c) colleges of adult and continuing education for each year since 1978–79 in (i) absolute cash terms, (ii) real terms and (iii) in terms of the rise in average earnings indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100;

  (3) what was the cost of salaries to (a) academic staff and (b) non-academic staff at (1) universities, (2)

  Table 2: polytechnic and adult education institutions salary bills1 in cash and real terms (£ thousands)

  Polytechnics

  Adult education institutions

  Year: April to March

  Academic staff

  Non-academic staff

  Academic staff

  Non-academic staff

  cash

  real terms

  cash

  real terms

  cash

  real terms

  cash

  real terms

  1978–79

  153,926

  100·0

  67,442

  100·0

  36,986

  100·0

  8,186

  100·0

  1979–80

  174,988

  97·4

  81,002

  102·9

  43,256

  100·2

  10,208

  106·9

  1980–81

  221,217

  104·1

  94,543

  101·5

  52,680

  103·2

  11,632

  102·9

  1981–82

  242,479

  104·0

  106,096

  103·9

  60,829

  108·6

  13,363

  107·8

  1982–83

  256,406

  102·7

  114,534

  104·7

  68,971

  115·0

  14,365

  108·2

  1983–84

  267,821

  102·6

  118,963

  104·0

  77,089

  122·9

  16,058

  115·6

  1984–85

  276,787

  100·9

  126,915

  105·6

  82,231

  124·7

  17,152

  117·5

  1985–86

  292,421

  101·1

  132,840

  104·8

  88,159

  126·8

  18,236

  118·5

  1986–87

  309,669

  103·5

  144,724

  110·3

  94,308

  131·1

  20,875

  131·1

  1987–88

  336,601

  106·8

  155,058

  112·2

  100,986

  133·3

  23,218

  138·5

  1988–89

  362,987

  107·1

  168,748

  113·7

  105,878

  130·1

  22,457

  124·6

  1Source: Handbook of Education Unit Costs.

  Table 3: University Full-time Lecturer: Average Salary Comparisons

  Cash

  Percentage change

  Real terms

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average earnings

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average professional earnings

  Percentage change

  1978

  7,253

  —

  100·0

  —

  100·0

  —

  100·0

  —

  1979

  8,486

  17·0

  99·8

  –0·2

  103·2

  3·2

  106·7

  6·7

  1980

  10,012

  18·0

  102·3

  2·5

  99·1

  –4·0

  99·9

  –6·4

  1981

  11,224

  12·1

  102·3

  0·1

  98·0

  –1·1

  94·9

  –5·0

  1982

  11,962

  6·6

  103·5

  1·1

  95·5

  –2·5

  93·8

  –1·1

  1983

  12,579

  5·2

  103·3

  –0·2

  92·5

  –3·2

  91·0

  –2·9

  1984

  13,392

  6·5

  105·2

  1·8

  91·1

  –1·5

  90·7

  –0·4

  312
  polytechnics and (3) colleges of higher education each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100;

  (4) if he will list figures for the average rise in salary of full-time lecturers at (a) universities, (b) polytechnics and (c) colleges of higher education for each year since 1978–79 in relation to the rise in average professional earnings.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is not available in the form requested, but the following tables should be useful. In each case, the real-terms series for average salaries are derived on the basis of movements in all items RPI, and those for salary bills on the basis of movements in the GDP deflator. The figures for academic staff pay shown do not include any non-salary earnings: comparable information is not available on such earnings. The university figures relate to Great Britain and those for local authority maintained institutions to England and Wales.

  Table 1: University salary bills1 in cash and real terms

  (£ thousands)

  Academic staff

  Non-academic staff

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  1978–79

  330,615

  100·0

  103,474

  100·0

  1979–80

  409,159

  105·5

  122,936

  101·3

  1980–81

  522,157

  117·0

  164,227

  117·6

  1981–82

  546,235

  112·5

  170,144

  112·0

  1982–83

  557,383

  108·1

  171,480

  106·2

  1983–84

  592,988

  109·7

  179,808

  106·3

  1984–85

  622,885

  109·6

  185,756

  104·4

  1985–86

  677,611

  113·8

  193,933

  104·1

  1986–87

  734,848

  118·5

  202,416

  104·3

  1987–88

  801,421

  121·9

  210,798

  102·4

  1988–89

  861,820

  122·4

  222,754

  101·1

  Year: August to July.

  1Source: Universities' Statistical Record. The figures used relate to staff in academic departments.
  313

  Cash

  Percentage change

  Real terms

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average earnings

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average professional earnings

  Percentage change

  1985

  14,005

  4·6

  104·1

  –1·1

  88·8

  –2·6

  88·8

  –2·1

  1986

  14,294

  2·1

  102·4

  –1·6

  83·9

  –5·5

  82·6

  –6·9

  1987

  16,643

  16·4

  115·0

  12·3

  90·7

  8·1

  88·7

  7·4

  1988

  17,656

  6·1

  114·2

  –0·7

  87·6

  –3·4

  84·6

  –4·6

  Average salaries as at December. Taken from Universities' Statistical Record.

  Average earnings and average professional earnings drawn from the New earnings Survey and relate to April of same calendar year.

  Table 4: Local authority F&HE maintained sector full-time academic staff: average salary comparisons

  Cash

  Percentage change

  Real terms

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average earnings

  Percentage change

  Index relative to average professional earnings

  Percentage change

  1979

  7,020

  —

  100·0

  —

  100·0

  —

  100·0

  —

  1980

  7,573

  7·9

  90·1

  –9·9

  87·8

  –12·2

  85·6

  –14·4

  1981

  9,806

  29·5

  103·6

  15·0

  100·3

  14·3

  93·9

  9·7

  1982

  10,541

  7·5

  100·9

  –2·6

  98·6

  –1·7

  93·6

  –0·3

  1983

  11,189

  6·1

  102·4

  1·5

  96·3

  –2·3

  91·7

  –2·0

  1984

  11,728

  4·8

  102·0

  –0·4

  93·4

  –3·0

  90·0

  –1·9

  1985

  12,317

  5·0

  100·9

  –1·0

  91·4

  –2·2

  88·5

  –1·7

  1986

  13,212

  7·3

  103·9

  2·9

  90·8

  –0·7

  86·5

  –2·2

  1987

  13,966

  5·7

  105·6

  1·6

  89·1

  –1·8

  84·4

  –4·7

  1988

  15,346

  9·9

  112·1

  6·2

  89·2

  0·1

  83·3

  –1·2

  1989

  16,340

  6·5

  110·6

  –1·3

  86·5

  –3·0

  79·4

  –4·7

  Average salaries as at March. Provided by Local Government Management Board.

  Average earnings and average professional earnings drawn from the New Earnings Survey and relate to April of same calendar year.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many students aged(a) over 25 years, (b) 30 years and (c) 40 years were enrolled in (i) undergraduate and (ii) graduate higher education in the United Kingdom in each year since 1978–79; and what proportion these represented of the total;

  (2) what number of (a) academic staff and (b) non-academic staff were employed at (i) universities, (ii) polytechnics and (iii) colleges of higher education in each year since 1978–79;

  (3) what number of (a) full-time students and (b) part-time students attended (i) universities, (ii) polytechnics and (iii) colleges of higher education in each year since 1978–79;

  (4) what proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds secured (a) a non-degree place and (b) a degree place in (i) universities, (ii) polytechnics and (iii) colleges of higher education in each year since 1978–79;

  (5) what number of women students (a) attended (i) universities, (ii) polytechnics and (iii) colleges of higher education and (b) attended (1) undergraduate and (2) graduate higher education in the United Kingdom in each year since 1978–79; and what proportion these represented of the total;

  (6) how many (a) overseas students, (b) Commonwealth students, (c) non-Commonwealth third world students and (d) European Community students were enrolled in (i) undergraduate and (ii) graduate higher education in the United Kingdom in each year since 1978–79; and what proportion these represented of the total.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information is contained in the Department's statistical publications.

  Data on mature students are given in Statistical Bulletin 2/91—"Mature Students in Higher Education". Numbers of academic staff are shown in table 9 of "Education
  314
  Statistics for the United Kingdom"; details of non-academic staff are not available centrally. Statistical Bulletin 11/90—"Student Numbers in Higher Education" contains details of full and part-time students, by sector, level of study, age and sex. Statistical Bulletin 11/89—"Students from Abroad in Great Britain" and table 30 of "Education Statistics for the United Kingdom" give details of students from abroad, by country and sector.

  All those publications are available in the Library.

  The total numbers of young home initial entrants in full-time higher education expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old Great Britain population—the Age Participation Index (API)—were:

  Academic year beginning

  per cent.

  1979

  12·3

  1980

  12·6

  1981

  13·1

  1982

  13·4

  1983

  13·2

  1984

  13·7

  1985

  13·9

  1986

  14·0

  1987

  14·6

  1988

  15·1

  1989

  17·1

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much has been spent on discretionary awards to higher education students in each year since 1978–79 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows expenditure on discretionary awards made by local education authorities in England and Wales using their powers under section 1(6) of the Education Act 1962.
  315

  Academic Year

  Cash expenditure

  At 1978–79 Prices

  £ million

  £ million

  Index

  1978–79

  8·3

  8·3

  100

  1979–80

  8·5

  7·3

  88

  1980–81

  8·7

  6·4

  77

  1981–82

  9·4

  6·3

  76

  1982–83

  9·3

  5·8

  70

  1983–84

  9·9

  5·8

  70

  1984–85

  10·1

  5·7

  69

  1985–86

  10·7

  5·7

  69

  1986–87

  11·1

  5·7

  69

  1987–88

  12·7

  6·3

  76

  1988–89

  11·4

  5·3

  64

  Awards made under section 1(6) are made at LEA's discretion to students attending courses designated for mandatory awards purposes who are personally ineligible for a mandatory award. The cash expenditure includes both fees and maintenance paid as part of the award. The constant price and index figures have been calculated using the retail price index. The reduction in expenditure in 1982–83 reflected a change in the level of fees payable as part of the award.

  Central Government's own expenditure

  £ million

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  UNIVERSITIES FUNDING COUNCIL (formerly UGC)

  Current

  Cash

  602

  728

  943

  968

  1,176

  1,222

  1,253

  1,283

  1,320

  1,468

  1,585

  Real terms

  1,409

  1,461

  1,599

  1,497

  1,698

  1,686

  1,646

  1,598

  1,589

  1,678

  1,686

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  100·0

  103·7

  113·5

  106·2

  120·5

  119·7

  116·8

  113·4

  112·8

  119·1

  119·7

  Capital

  Cash

  70

  88

  98

  103

  107

  103

  107

  118

  130

  129

  141

  Real terms

  164

  177

  166

  159

  154

  142

  141

  147

  157

  147

  150

  Index (1978–79 = (100)

  100·0

  107·9

  101·2

  97·0

  93·9

  86·6

  86·0

  89·6

  95·7

  89·6

  91·5

  OTHER HIGHER EDUCATION

  Current

  Cash

  98

  123

  156

  165

  171

  172

  174

  177

  181

  194

  197

  Real terms

  229

  247

  265

  255

  247

  237

  229

  220

  218

  222

  210

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  100·0

  107·9

  115·7

  111·4

  107·9

  103·5

  100·0

  96·1

  95·2

  96·9

  91·7

  Capital

  Cash

  12

  20

  18

  18

  17

  19

  19

  20

  22

  22

  25

  Real terms

  28

  40

  31

  28

  25

  26

  25

  25

  26

  25

  27

  Index (1978–79 = 100)

  100·0

  142·9

  110·7

  100·0

  89·3

  92·9

  89·3

  89·3

  92·9

  89·3

  96·4

  Libraries
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list figures for(a) recurrent and (b) capital spending by the Government on (i) university libraries and (ii) polytechnic libraries and colleges of further education libraries, for each year since 1978–79 in (1) cash terms and (2) real terms indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There is no earmarked public funding for book provision through either the higher education funding councils or specific grants for further education. It is for individual institutions to determine their expenditure within the total resources at their disposal.
  316
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list figures for(a) recurrent spending and (b) capital spending by the Government on (1) universities and (2) polytechnics and colleges of higher education for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data from 1985–86 to 1990–91 are available from the departmental report (CM 1511) available in the House Library. Grants distributed on the advice of the Universities Grants Committee (UGC) for 1978–79 through to 1988–89 are given in the table along with central Government expenditure on other higher education.

  Included under other higher education are those voluntary and direct grant colleges that became the responsibility of the PCFC from 1989–90, the Open university, Cranfield Institute of Technology, the Royal College of Art, British Academy postgraduate state studentships and other higher education grants.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the cost of increasing the level of student grants by(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent. and (c) 10 per cent.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have already announced the intention for 1991–92 to hold the main rates of grant payable under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations steady in cash terms at their current values. Increases in student support are now provided primarily by increases in the student loan facility. Total full-year support from grant and loan combined in the current academic year is 25 per cent. higher than grant alone last year.

  The cost in the 1992–93 financial year of raising the main rates of grant, assuming that parental contributions would continue to be held steady in cash terms, would be as follows:
  317

  raise by 1 per cent.—£13 million

  raise by 5 per cent.—£58 million

  raise by 10 per cent.—£116 million.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of students have been assessed for the maximum parental contribution student maintenance grant; and what proportion of students in receipt of awards have received the maximum grant in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data are not available in the form requested. The maximum parental contribution was introduced for the 1985–86 academic year and applies in aggregate if the parent has more than one child who holds an award. The maximum parental contribution has been set as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  4,000

  1986–87

  4,300

  1987–88

  4,600

  1988–89

  4,900

  1989–90

  5,300

  1990–91

  5,800

  The maximum parental contribution will be held steady in cash terms for 1991–92 in line with our new arrangements for student support.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average parental contribution of those assessed for a contribution for each year since 1978–79 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not possible to give the average parental contribution only for those parents assessed as being liable for a contribution. The table shows the average parental contribution assessed under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations for all award holders, including those whose contribution was assessed at nil.

  At 1978–79 prices

  Academic year

  Contribution cash (£)

  £

  Index

  1978–79

  275

  275

  100

  1979–80

  256

  220

  80

  1980–81

  288

  213

  78

  1981–82

  352

  234

  85

  1982–83

  414

  257

  93

  1983–84

  437

  258

  94

  1984–85

  587

  331

  120

  1985–86

  720

  383

  139

  1986–87

  764

  394

  143

  1987–88

  817

  405

  147

  1988–89

  860

  403

  146

  The constant price and index figures have been calculated using the retail prices index.

  Postgraduate Awards
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the level of postgraduate awards for each year since 1978–79 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The levels of postgraduate awards, as at October each year, since 1978–79 in cash and real terms are given in the table:
  318

  DES/Research Council/British Academy studentships

  Value of basic maintenance allowances 1978–88

  Elsewhere

  London

  At 1978–79 prices

  At 1978–79 prices

  AC year

  cash

  cash

  Index

  cash

  cash

  Index

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  1,610

  1,610

  100

  1,990

  1,990

  100

  1979–80

  1,820

  1,553

  96

  2,250

  1,921

  97

  1980–81

  2,090

  1,546

  96

  2,570

  1,901

  96

  1981–82

  2,245

  1,487

  92

  2,770

  1,834

  92

  1982–83

  2,335

  1,447

  90

  2,880

  1,785

  90

  1983–84

  2,430

  1,434

  89

  2,995

  1,768

  89

  1984–85

  2,585

  1,453

  90

  3,170

  1,782

  90

  1985–86

  2,665

  1,421

  88

  3,265

  1,741

  87

  1986–87

  2,756

  1,427

  89

  3,366

  1,743

  88

  1987–88

  2,859

  1,416

  88

  3,492

  1,730

  87

  1988–89

  2,975

  1,385

  86

  3,630

  1,690

  85

  Research Council studentships 1989–90

  Elsewhere

  London

  At 1978–79 prices

  At 1978–79 prices

  AC year

  cash

  cash

  Index

  cash

  cash

  Index

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  3,725

  1,616

  100

  4,690

  2,035

  102

  1990–91

  3,725

  1,457

  90

  4,690

  1,835

  92

  DES/British Academy studentships 1989–90

  Elsewhere

  London

  At 1978–79 prices

  At 1978–79 prices

  AC year

  cash

  cash

  Index

  cash

  cash

  Index

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  3,125

  1,356

  84

  3,970

  1,722

  87

  1990–91

  3,725

  1,457

  90

  4,690

  1,835

  92

  DES state bursaries

  Value of basic maintenance allowances 1978–90

  Elsewhere

  London

  At 1978–79 prices

  At 1978–79 prices

  AC year

  cash

  cash

  Index

  cash

  cash

  Index

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  1,100

  1,100

  100

  1,315

  1,315

  100

  1979–80

  1,245

  1,063

  97

  1,485

  1,268

  96

  1980–81

  1,430

  1,058

  96

  1,695

  1,254

  95

  1981–82

  1,535

  1,016

  92

  1,825

  1,208

  92

  1982–83

  1,595

  988

  90

  1,900

  1,177

  90

  1983–84

  1,660

  980

  89

  1,975

  1,166

  89

  1984–85

  1,725

  970

  88

  2,050

  1,153

  88

  1985–86

  1,775

  947

  86

  2,110

  1,125

  86

  1986–87

  1,846

  956

  87

  2,191

  1,134

  86

  1987–88

  1,915

  949

  86

  2,273

  1,126

  86

  1988–89

  1,990

  926

  84

  2,365

  1,101

  84

  1989–90

  2,090

  907

  82

  2,585

  1,122

  85

  1990–91

  2,195

  859

  78

  2,775

  1,086

  83

  Open University
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the Government have spent in grants for(a) current expenditure and (b) capital expenditure to the Open university in each year since 1978–79 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The tables give recurrent and capital grants to the Open university since 1978–79 in cash terms and also expressed as an index1 using 100 as a base for the financial year 1978–79. The figures for capital grant reflect a decline in the number of capital projects after the initial development of the Walton Hall site.

  (a) Recurrent grant:
  319

  Cash terms

  Index

  £ million

  1978–79

  29·96

  100

  1979–80

  36·71

  105

  1980–81

  47·13

  114

  1981–82

  51·27

  113

  1982–83

  55·21

  114

  1983–84

  56·42

  111

  1984–85

  59·05

  111

  1985–86

  60·93

  108

  1986–87

  60·39

  104

  1987–88

  64·25

  105

  1988–89

  66·39

  101

  1989–90

  72·77

  104

  1990–91

  80·94

  107

  1991–92

  87·98

  109

  (b) Capital grant:

  Cash terms

  Index

  £ million

  1978–79

  2·9

  100

  1979–80

  4·7

  139

  1980–81

  4·63

  116

  1981–82

  3·69

  84

  1982–83

  2·03

  43

  1983–84

  0·7

  14

  1984–85

  1·4

  27

  1985–86

  0·87

  16

  1986–87

  2·08

  37

  1987–88

  1·43

  24

  1988–89

  2·37

  37

  1989–90

  2·41

  36

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash figures (£ million)

  614

  634

  657

  703

  748

  810

  887

  Real terms (£ million—1989–90 Prices)

  886

  875

  863

  876

  900

  926

  944

  Index

  100

  98·7

  97·3

  98·8

  101·6

  104·4

  106·4

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was total Government spending on higher education student support in each year since 1978–79 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, indexed so that 1978–79 equals 100; and what was expenditure per student over the same period.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The table shows the expenditure made by local education authorities in England and Wales in bestowing mandatory awards under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations:

  Academic Year

  Expenditure Cash

  At 1978–79 Prices

  Expenditure per student

  £ million

  £ million

  Index

  cash £

  1978–79

  468·9

  468·9

  100

  1,466

  1979–80

  550·0

  472·1

  101

  1,705

  1980–81

  679·3

  503·0

  107

  2,031

  1981–82

  783·4

  520·9

  111

  2,210

  1982–83

  680·6

  421·9

  90

  1,837

  1983–84

  719·1

  424·0

  90

  1,870

  1984–85

  706·6

  397·9

  85

  1,788

  1985–86

  696·1

  370·1

  79

  1,783

  1986–87

  724·7

  374·1

  80

  1,838

  1987–88

  765·4

  379·3

  81

  1,893

  1988–89

  825·7

  386·4

  82

  1,988

  The cash expenditure includes both fees and maintenance paid as part of the mandatory award. The
  320

  Cash terms

  Index

  £ million

  1990–91

  2·13

  29

  1991–92

  2·13

  27

  1 Indexed figures result from adjusting the cash outturn figures for past years using the deflator for gross domestic product at market prices.

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the Government have allocated to the National Advisory Body, and subsequently for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, each year since 1982 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, indexed so that 1982 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  With the creation of the PCFC sector in 1989–90, direct comparisons with earlier years are not possible. Funds allocated to the PCFC amounted to £1,114 million in 1989–90 and an estimated £1,108 million in 1990–91.

  Prior to 1989–90, funding of colleges now in the PCFC sector was not directly through NAB. Figures from 1982–83 through to 1988–89 therefore cover not only those institutions currently in the PCFC sector but the other higher education establishments maintained by the local authority sector. Total allocations to these establishments for higher education plus capital expenditure by LEAs amounted to:

  constant price and index figures have been calculated using the retail prices index. The reduction in expenditure per student in 1982–83 reflected a change in the level of fees payable as part of the mandatory award.

  Oxford Polytechnic
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the subject areas at Oxford polytechnic for which Her Majesty's inspectors were not able to give advise on the quality of provision to the programme advisory groups of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council when they were considering bids for 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Oxford polytechnic claimed outstanding quality in eight of the nine Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council programme areas as part of its bid for funds in 1991–92. Her Majesty's inspectorate had sufficient recent inspection evidence to offer advice to the appropriate PCFC programme advisory group on the majority of these claims. The exceptions were some aspects of programme area 2 (built environment) and programme area 9b (in-service education).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne may expect a reply to his letter of 18 January regarding a funding matter concerning the Falmouth school of art and design.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 19 April.

  Haberdashers' Aske's Schools
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applicants and how many acceptances there were for places for the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham Wood boys and girls schools for the years beginning September 1990 and September 1989, respectively; and what is the ethnic breakdown of these figures for boys and girls, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  The recorded intake for the boys' and girls' schools were, for the boys, 96 and 99 and, for the girls, 96 and 97 in 1989 and 1990 respectively. Intake statistics by ethnic background are not held centrally for these years. However, I understand that the girls' school has produced such statistics for its own purposes for 1990.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford,Official Report, 28 March, columns 485–86, if he will give the ethnic breakdown for applications and acceptances by the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology colleges for the year beginning September 1991 for boys and girls, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to her on 28 March,Official Report, columns 485–86. It is not possible to identify the sex of all initial applicants (830); of those interviewed 302 were boys and 265 girls.

  Global Youth Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department will make available resources to assist the attendance of British young environmentalists at the Global Youth Summit planned to be held in Rio De Janeiro from 2 to 8 June 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has no plans to do so.

  Cambridge Regional College
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes that the existing sites on which Cambridge regional college is located, to be vacated on completion of the college capital project, should be transferred back to the local education authority or whether they should be regarded as the property of the college.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend made clear in his statement to the House on 21 March,Official Report, columns. 432–48, that he intends to vest colleges with the land, buildings and plants which they currently use. The disposal of such assets will require his specific consent. Each case will be considered on its merits and he will listen to any reasonable proposals that LEAs wish to make. My right hon. and learned Friend looks forward to
  322
  receiving details of Cambridgeshire LEA's proposals for the transfer of assets currently used by Cambridge regional college.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will provide the necessary assurances to enable tendering to be completed and work to begin as scheduled on the capital project to provide new purpose-built accommodation for the Cambridge regional college;

  (2) what evaluation he has made of the effects of his statement on the future of further education on the tendering process for phase one of the capital project to provide new accommodation for Cambridge regional college.

  Mr. Eggar
  LEAs are required to gain the consent of college governing bodies for all contracts that endure beyond 31 March 1993 and will, additionally, require the Secretary of State's consent for contracts valued in excess of £50,000. My right hon. and learned Friend intends that these requirements should not unnecessarily impede the tendering process. He looks forward to receiving details of Cambridgeshire LEA's contract proposals for phase 1 of the regional college's building project.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to provide a guarantee that the debt charges on capital expenditure to provide new accommodation for Cambridge regional college will not remain the responsibility of the local education authority should the college be accorded corporate status.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the treatment of debt charges arising after 31 March 1993 from capital spending on colleges and will announce his intentions shortly.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Cambridgeshire county council about the impact of his statement on the future of further education on the project for new purpose-built accommodation for the Cambridge regional college.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a representation about the impact of his statement on Cambridge regional college about debt charges and capital funding after 31 March 1993 for the building project at Cambridge regional college. Officers of the authority have also been in touch with DES officials.

  Environmental Research Database
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the role of the global environmental research office and database established at the Science and Engineering Research Council headquarters in Swindon.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The United Kingdom global environmental research office, which is jointly funded by the five research councils and housed by the Natural Environment Research Council in Swindon, acts as a focal point for the provision and dissemination of information on United Kingdom and international GER science and policy developments, and as a contact point for equivalent offices in other countries. It provides the secretariat for the
  323
  United Kingdom inter-agency committee on global environment change and maintains a database of United Kingdom GER research activities.

  Female Circumcision
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide guidance for teachers on female circumcision and the symptoms of children at risk and recent victims.

  Mr. Fallon
  Where teachers are concerned about the health and welfare of pupils, they should make their concerns known to the relevant agencies under the arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children. There is existing central guidance on these arrangements, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is planning to issue revised guidance later this year, which will draw attention to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce his plans for further delegation and increased independence for schools under schemes of local management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Today we are publishing departmental circular 7/91, which sets out new guidance for local education authorities on the local management of schools. The measures contained in the circular reflect our determination to ensure that schools become more independent of their LEAs.

  Local management of schools will be extended as follows:
  any school may apply for delegated management from April 1992;
  all schools must have delegated management by April 1994;
  by April 1993, 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget must be delegated to the school level which, on 1990–91 figures, will release a further £140 million to our schools;
  by April 1993, 80 per cent. of those delegated funds must be linked directly to pupil numbers, weighted for age and special needs;
  special schools will be able to apply for delegated management from April 1994, by which time local authorities must have introduced formula funding for all special schools.

  To ensure that schools have the necessary flexibility efficiently to manage their budgets, we intend to require local education authorities to allow all secondary schools to operate their own bank accounts.

  Copies of the circular are today being placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Prehistoric Sites
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends any initiatives to vary the extent of excavations on prehistoric sites in Gwent and Glamorgan.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. The extent of archaeological excavations funded by my Department and the particular approach for specific sites is kept under constant review. This ensures the most effective archaeological response to threatened sites.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of local authority nursery school places provided by every Welsh education authority, expressed as a percentage of the eligible children in each area.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The proportion of three and four-year-olds in nursery schools in September 1990 is shown in the following table. Data on the number of places in nursery schools are not held centrally.

  Percentage of 3 and 4 year old population1

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  1·4

  Dyfed

  2·5

  Gwent

  8·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  7·4

  South Glamorgan

  6·9

  West Glamorgan

  2·3

  1 There are no nursery schools in Gwynedd or Powys, although, as in all counties, a significant number of other 3 and 4-year-olds attend schools either in nursery classes or in ordinary classes.

  New House Building
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total of new house and flat construction by Welsh local authorities in each of the past 12 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Annual data from 1975 to 1989 was published in table 2·3 of Welsh Housing Statistics No. 10, 1990, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. In 1990, 551 dwellings were completed by local authorities.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage of total unemployment in(a) the area covered by the valleys initiative and (b) Wales during each of the past 24 months for which details are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Unemployment rates for Wales and the valleys area are given in the following table:

  Unemployment rate percentage

  Wales

  Programme for the valleys area

  1989

  April

  7·9

  11·3

  May

  7·5

  10·8

  June

  7·1

  10·4

  July

  7·1

  10·4

  August

  7·0

  10·2

  September

  6·9

  10·3

  October

  6·6

  9·5

  November

  6·5

  9·2

  December

  6·7

  9·4

  1990

  January

  7·0

  9·8

  February

  6·8

  9·6

  March

  6·7

  9·4

  April

  6·5

  9·3

  May

  6·3

  9·1

  June

  6·1

  8·9

  July

  6·4

  9·2

  August

  6·5

  9·2

  September

  6·6

  9·4

  October

  6·6

  9·3

  November

  6·9

  9·5

  December

  7·4

  10·1

  325

  Wales

  Programme for the valleys area

  1991

  January

  7·8

  10·7

  February

  8·1

  11·0

  March

  8·3

  11·5

  Note:

  The rates are calculated by expressing the unadjusted number of unemployed claimants as a percentage of the estimated total work force (the sum of unemployed claimants, employees in employment, self-employed, HM forces and participants on work-related Government training programmes). Mid-year estimates of the relevant total work force are used in calculating the unemployment rates. The Welsh figures for 1989 use 1989 mid-year estimates of the total work force in Wales; the Welsh figures for 1990 and the first three months of 1991 use mid-1990 estimates of the total work force. Unemployment rates calculated for the programme for the valleys area use mid-1989 estimates of the total work force in the area throughout.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Security
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the main rate of supplementary benefit or income support available in Northern Ireland in 1979 for (i) a single person and (ii) a couple with two children; and what the value would be today if it had been raised in line with(a) the RPI and (b) average industrial wages.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 April 1991]: The available information is as follows:

  Single1 householder

  Couple1 with two children under 5

  £

  £

  Supplementary benefit

  Scale rate—November 1979

  18·30

  40·10

  Value if raised in line with:

  (a) RPI2

  37·99

  83·26

  (b) average earnings3

  46·86

  102·68

  The figures are not comparable with any current income support rates; supplementary benefit was structured and assessed in a completely different manner.

  1 Under pension age and unemployed.

  2 To April 1990.

  3 New Series Index (Whole Economy) seasonally adjusted to April 1990.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Offices
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving family credit in the areas covered by the Poplar, Stepney and Shoreditch DSS offices, respectively; and how many people in 'Tower Hamlets as a whole are receiving family credit.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of families receiving family credit who were living in the areas covered by the local social security offices in Tower Hamlets at the time their award was made is as follows:
  326

  Number

  Poplar

  568

  Stepney

  1,156

  Shoreditch

  282

  Total

  2,006

  Note: Number of awards actually in payment on 8 February 1991 i.e. excludes awards on claims made before that date but not decided at that stage.

  Poll Tax Rebates
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many poll tax payers in the Easington district council area will lose rebate arising out of the proposed reduction in the poll tax.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available.

  Adjudication Regulations
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a detailed estimate of the annual savings that would be made by the abolition of regulation 72 of the Adjudication Regulations in relation to supplementary benefit and national assistance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates of the impact of amending the regulation to exclude supplementary benefit and national assistance are uncertain and no estimate of savings is therefore possible.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the age distribution of the first children for whom £2 a week extra child benefit will be payable from next October, distinguishing between children aged 0 to 4 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years and 16 years or over.

  Mr. Jack
  The latest available estimates are based on June 1990 figures. They show that the number of children for whom the higher child benefit rate of £9·25 a week will be payable from October 1991 will be:

  Million

  Aged 0 to 4 years

  1·7

  Aged 5 to 10 years

  2·0

  Aged 11 to 15 years

  2·2

  Aged 16 years or over

  0·9

  Total

  6·8

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will tabulate figures showing the annual costs of each extra £1 a week child benefit for(a) first children, (b) second children, (c) third children and (d) fourth and subsequent children.

  Mr. Jack
  We estimate that the costs in 1991–92 would be(a) £355 million, (b) £205 million, (c) £60 million, and (d) £20 million.

  If such increases were offset in national insurance and income-related benefits, the net costs would be (a) £250 million, (b) £150 million, (c) £40 million, and (d) £10 million.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost(a) gross and (b) after

  327
  deduction of income support of uprating child benefit from its present level (i) by £1 a week for the first child only, (ii) by a further £1 a week for the first child plus 25 pence a week for the second and subsequent children and (iii) by £2·30 a week for each child; and what would be the comparable figures for uprating child benefit from its proposed October 1991 level by an extra 30 pence a week for the first child and an extra £2·05 a week for second and subsequent children.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: On the basis of our latest estimates, the gross full year costs in 1991–92 of uprating child benefit from the 1990–91 rate of £7·25 per week would be (i) £355 million, (ii) £425 million, and (iii) £1,475 million.

  The equivalent net costs, after the normal adjustments to national insurance and income-related benefits, are (i) £250 million, (ii) £300 million and (iii) £1,045 million.

  The full year costs in 1991–92 of increasing child benefit by 30p per week for the eldest eligible child in the family and by £2·05 for each other child are estimated to be £695 million gross and £490 million net.

  National Insurance Pension
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the April 1991 value of the category A national insurance pension, at uprating dates each year since 1978, using the general index of retail prices, including housing costs.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the real value of the state retirement pension in previous years at April 1991 prices will not be available until the RPI figure for that month is known. Figures on the value of the state retirement pension at April 1990 prices are set out in table 5 1(a) of the October 1990 edition of the DSS "Abstract of Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Pensioner Couples
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those benefits and their average value which are available to pensioner couples on basic pensions who are in receipt of income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The benefits listed in the table are available to pensioner couples on income support with basic pensions. They are also available to pensioner couples who do not receive income support.

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  Mobility allowance1

  Invalid care allowance2

  Severe disability allowance

  Invalidity benefit3

  Sickness benefit3

  Industrial injury benefit

  War disablement pension

  Attendance allowance

  Help with NHS charges and payments from the social fund4

  Notes:

  1 Mobility allowance continues to age 80 but cannot be claimed after age 66 (but mobility conditions must have been met before age 65).

  2 Invalid care allowance continues but cannot be claimed after age 60 for women and 65 for men.

  3 Invalidity benefit and sickness benefit can be paid up to five years beyond pension age.

  4 Crisis loans and payments for certain specific items are possible if customers are not on income support.
  328
  Whether or not any of these would actually be payable to any one couple would depend on their particular circumstances.

  Information on the average amount of each benefit in payment to pensioner couples is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the financial allocation to the social fund for each local office in Scotland and the actual sum spent in each case for the financial year ended 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on allocations for 1991–92 and monthly expenditure up to February 1991 are available in the Library. The March 1991 figures will be available shortly.

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the costs incurred by his Department from the discharge of patients from long-stay hospital beds to private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No such assessment has been made as information about a claimant's previous place of residence is not collected.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of new claims for family credit were unsuccessful in each of last 24 months for which records are available; and what was the spending on advertising family credit during those months.

  Mr. Jack
  Of the new claims for family credit cleared during each of these months the percentage which was unsuccessful was as follows:

  Per cent.

  April 1989

  46·2

  May 1989

  64·6

  June 1989

  60·0

  July 1989

  52·2

  August 1989

  48·6

  September 1989

  48·4

  October 1989

  47·0

  November 1989

  48·4

  December 1989

  52·8

  January 1990

  53·4

  February 1990

  49·1

  March 1990

  49·5

  April 1990

  47·8

  May 1990

  45·0

  June 1990

  46·2

  July 1990

  47·0

  August 1990

  47·5

  September 1990

  49·5

  October 1990

  46·6

  November 1990

  45·1

  December 1990

  45·5

  January 1991

  49·4

  February 1991

  47·6

  March 1991

  48·4

  During the same period the percentage of renewal claims which were unsuccessful ranged from 11·6 per cent. to 18·6 per cent.
  329
  Notes

  1.The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday of each month.

  2.Unsuccessful claims includes those which were withdrawn or were invalid, as well as those where it was decided there was no entitlement to benefit.

  It is not possible to express the spending on advertising on a month by month basis. The spending on each of the advertising campaigns during the period was as follows:

  Advertising campaign

  Expenditure (£)

  April-June 1989

  3,635,000

  October 1989-January 1990

  2,200,000

  June-August 1990

  2,394,000

  February-March 1991

  1,500,000

  Income Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of income support in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to the answer, 15 April, c. 89]:I regret that the hon. Member's question was incorrectly linked for answer. It should have received the following answer.

  In May 1989, the latest date for which information is available, some 486,000 people in Scotland were in receipt of income support. This information is drawn from the May 1989 Annual Statistical Enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Industrial Premises
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has of the trends in investment by the private sector in new industrial and warehousing premises in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There is no clear statistical evidence from which trends in the volume of private sector industrial investment can be drawn. There are, however, encouraging signs of increased activity in this area.

  During 1990, consistent: with the Government's policy of encouraging the private sector to take a greater role in the development and management of industrial property in Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency disposed of property holdings valued at almost £140 million. The disposals included sites with development potential and we are aware that the new private sector owners have undertaken or plan to undertake industrial developments on a number of these.

  It seems likely that owner-occupiers whose businesses are prospering will continue to invest in new units and extensions and that other businesses will follow as the economy recovers. Interest in speculative building, which has been constrained by low rents and recent high interest rates, is expected to revive as interest rates fall and rents increase to match building costs.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many adults over 18 years of age there are in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.
  330
  Mr. Lang
  The population of Scotland aged 18 years and over at 30 June 1990 is provisionally estimated to have been 3,940,000.

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approved training organisations there are in Scotland; and what are their names.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  There were 305 approved training organisations in Scotland as at 31 March 1991.

  Information about the names of these approved training organisations is set out in the table.

  Information about additions or deletions from this list after 31 March 1991 is a matter for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and local enterprise companies.

  Employment training

  Workstart Ltd.

  Grampian Regional Council

  Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Board

  JHP Training Ltd.

  Aberdeen Enterprise Trust

  Angus Training Group

  Tayside Training Services

  Balloch Trust Enterprise Ltd.

  Highland Perth Development Co.

  St. Andrew's Business Association Ltd.

  Grampian Regional Council

  Moray District Council

  Voluntary Services Aberdeen

  Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce

  Hotel and Catering Training Board

  Mid Grampian Employment Training Ltd.

  Sullivan Ltd.

  Adult Community Training (Dundee) Ltd.

  Dundee Skill Centre

  Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce Industry

  Hotel and Catering Training Board

  Agricultural Training Board

  Tayside Training Company

  Workstart Ltd.

  Angus District Council

  Dundee Cyrenians Wishart Centre

  Dundee Enterprise Trust

  Heat Development (Dundee) Ltd.

  Wigtown District Council

  Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council Education

  Department

  Garnock Workspace Ltd.

  Best Ltd.

  Radix Training Ltd.

  Training Service Ayrshire Ltd.

  Care Ayrshire Training Ltd.

  Employment Training Sponsors (Scotland) Ltd.

  Dumfries and Galloway R.C. Consortium

  Galloway Training Organisation

  Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston Enterprise Trust

  Scottish Maritime Museum Trust

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  May-Tag Ltd.

  Phoenix Employment Training Agency Ltd.

  Skills Training Agency Irvine Skill Centre

  Lanarkshire Training Agency Ltd.

  RDL Professional Services Ltd.

  East Kilbride Energy Project Ltd.

  OSCC Training Services

  Midscot Training Services

  LAGDT Ltd.

  Lanarkshire Enterprise Training Ltd.

  Anne Rodger Training Salon

  Springboard Lanarkshire Trust

  Grand Metropolitan Commission Service Trust

  RRW Association (Hamilton) Ltd.

  Clydesdale District Council

  Hamilton District Council

  East Kilbride District Council

  331

  Scottish National Council of YMCA's

  VAMW (VAMW) Training Ltd.

  Bellshill Skill Centre (Astra Training Service)

  Queens College Glasgow Enterprise Ltd.

  Employment Training Scotland Ltd.

  Hillington Skill Centre

  Cobalt (UK) Ltd.

  Strathclyde Training Agency (Grand Metropolitan)

  Mill Training Ltd.

  East End Management Agency Co. Ltd.

  Henry Boot Training Ltd.

  Glasgow Training Group (Motor Trade) Ltd.

  MDS Management Services Ltd.

  RRW Associates Ltd.

  John Lawrence (Glasgow) Ltd.

  Whiteleys College

  Scottish Society Mentally Handicapped

  University of Glasgow

  Epilepsy Association of Scotland

  Glasgow Zoo

  Glasgow College Enterprise Ltd.

  MI Technologies Ltd.

  GRTA Training Ltd.

  Poldrait Community Development

  Sumlock Business Service (JHP Sumlock)

  Fife Regional Council

  Central Training

  Oriel Training Services

  Fife Chamber of Commerce

  Fife Transport Training

  Gangforth

  JHP Training Ltd.

  Skills Training Agency (ASTRA)

  North East Fife District Council

  Dunfermline District Council

  Hotel and Catering Training Board

  Central Scotland Chamber of Commerce

  Agriculture Training Board

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  Newstart (Dunfermline) Ltd.

  Training Craft Ltd.

  Metcom Training Ltd.

  Falkirk AT Enterprises (FATE) Ltd.

  Tektra Management Agency Ltd.

  Stirling Heatsave (Prospects)

  Scottish Training Foundation

  In Training Ltd.

  Strathkelvin Enterprise Trust

  RDL Professional Services Tell Training Ltd.

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation (TEC)

  Prospects (Strathclyde) Ltd.

  Intec (Inverclyde) Ltd.

  RRW Associates (RDA) Ltd.

  Business and Employment Skills Training (BEST)

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Microcomputer Training Centre

  The Training Agency Ltd.

  Greater Edinburgh Training Association

  Borders Regional Council

  Grand Metropolitan Community Services Trust

  Edinburgh District Engineering Training Association

  Ness Training Ltd.

  Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures

  Training and Development (Edinburgh) Ltd.

  Community and Business Training Ltd.

  South of Scotland Group Training (Edinburgh) Ltd.

  Royal Zoological Society of Scotland

  Scottish Centres

  Instand Muscle (Scotland) Ltd.

  Reid Consultants Ltd.

  Trust Training

  Apex Scotland

  Borders Training Services

  Livingston Development Corporation

  University of Edinburgh

  Wester Hailes Management Agency

  Craigmillar Festival Society

  Scottish Council for Spastics

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  332

  Cobalt (UK) Ltd.

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Community Industry

  Orkney Islands Council

  Support Training

  Highland Training and Development

  Caithness District Council

  Westwood Training Services

  McDermott Scotland Ltd.

  Moray Firth Group Training Association

  Simpson Dalgarno Partners

  Support Training

  Highland Training Ltd.

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Orkney Island Council

  Highland Regional Council

  Youth Training

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Strathkelvin District Council

  Stakis Hotels and Inns

  Scottish Fish Merchants Joint GTA

  University of Glasgow

  Dunvegan Equestrian Training

  Grampian Health Board

  Cumbernauld College

  Stanley Stores (Strathclyde) Ltd.

  Grampian Pig Industry Training Group

  Argyll and Bute District Council BP Chemicals

  Greater Glasgow Health Board School of Chiropody

  Co-operative Wholesale Society Scottish Retail Group

  Mackays Stores Ltd.

  Cheynes

  Renfrew District Council

  Western Scottish Omnibuses

  Eastern Scottish Omnibuses

  Bluebird Northern

  Lothian Health Board

  Grampian Meat Processors Training Association

  Legal Staff Training Centre

  Angus District Council

  Dumbarton District Council

  Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  R. D. Locke

  Suliven Ltd.

  Angus Training Group

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Robson Associates

  St. Andrews College

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  Highland Youth Training

  Huntly Rotary Club

  Atholl Palace Hotel

  Dundee Football Club plc

  Agricultural Training Board

  Radix Training (Scotland) Ltd.

  Burr Brown Ltd.

  Ethicon Ltd.

  Lothian Regional Council

  Edinburgh District Engineering Training Association

  West Lothian ITEC

  North East Fishermens Joint Group Training Association

  Dundee College of Technology

  TEKTRA

  Bonnybridge Co-operative Society

  Jaegar Tailoring Ltd.

  Kenmore Riding School

  Edinburgh District Council

  Livingston Development Corporation

  Scottish Business Services

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  Victor Harris (Gentswear) Ltd.

  Mackay Wilson Ltd.

  Reid Consultants

  NEI International Combustion

  D. and M. Clark Ltd.

  LETA Ltd.

  West Lothian District Council

  333

  Safeline (Scotland) Ltd.

  Napier College

  Belford Travel Ltd.

  S. M. Bayne and Co.

  Buckhaven Parish Church

  Marconi Instruments

  Drumbrae Riding Centre

  Ashbank Veterinary Centre

  Anderson Strathclyde plc

  City of Dundee District Council

  Holms Greenock Ltd.

  St. Brycedale Church

  Aberdeen ITEC

  GMCST Strathclyde Training Agency

  Cumbernauld YMCA/YWCA

  Heriot Watt University

  Mentor Management Agency

  Lander Alarms (Scotland) Ltd.

  John McCormick and Co. Ltd.

  Glasgow Retailers Training Association

  Leyland Vehicles Ltd.

  Charles McCrea

  Irvine Development Corporation

  G. and J. Johnston (Wemyss) Ltd.

  J. Howden

  The Post Office—Royal Mail Letters

  Highland Association of Training Groups

  Brown and Root—Wimpey Highland Fabricators

  Motherwell District Council

  Jack and Irving Professional Hair Design

  Post Office (Aberdeen Letters District Office)

  Post Office (Counters) Ltd

  North Lanarkshire ITEC

  Monklands Personnel Services

  British Aerospace plc

  Kyle and Carrick District Council

  Westwood Training Services

  Digital Equipment (Scotland) Ltd

  Safe Group Training Ltd

  University of Edinburgh

  Highland Health Board

  Edinburgh Young Mans Christian Association

  Canonmills Community Care

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc

  Hamilton District Council

  Hughes Microelectronics Ltd.

  Cumming (Leven) Ltd.

  Wm. Stephen (Bakers) Ltd.

  Kirkcaldy and District Chamber of Commerce

  John Brown Engineering Ltd.

  Cumbernauld ITEC

  Lomonside Stud

  Mugdock Nursery School

  Polaroid UK Ltd.

  Eastwood District Council

  SCOTMID Co-Op

  Pasolds (Sunchild) Ltd.

  Economic Forestry Ltd.

  Link Scotland Ltd.

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Imperial Chemical Industries plc

  Rolls Royce plc

  John Smith and Son (Glasgow) Ltd.

  Pointer Alarms Ltd.

  Ferranti plc

  Sterling Cars (Glasgow) Ltd.

  City of Glasgow District Council

  Strathclyde Catering Agency

  Speyside Management Agency

  Scottish Development Agency

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Tayside Road Transport Group Training

  Shell Expro Technician Training

  Link (Scotland) Ltd.

  Roche Products Ltd.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Tayside Training Services

  Golfing and Outdoor Sports Training Association

  Ayrshire Road Transport Group Training Association

  Jaeger Tailoring

  334

  Ayrshire ITEC Ltd.

  Nobels Explosives Company Ltd.

  Haxton and Lang Ltd.

  Cunninghame District Council

  Kirkwood and Co.

  Kramer Managing Agency

  John M. Petson

  McLellan Rubber Ltd.

  TVEI
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at 1990–91 prices, what is the expenditure on technical and vocational education initiative per school pupil in every year from 1985–86 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  TVEI can extend to every 14 to 18-year-old undergoing full-time education; it therefore includes students aged 16 to 18 attending colleges as well as school pupils in this age group. The education authorities have entered into and extended their participation in TVEI at varying rates over the years. Expenditure on a per school pupil basis would be available only at disproportionate cost. But spending is not necessarily geared to the number of students and any unit costs derived would not be meaningful. Total expenditure in Scotland on TVEI at 1990–91 prices is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ at constant (1990–91) prices

  1985–86

  3,087,131

  1986–87

  3,642,028

  1987–88

  7,624,724

  1988–89

  11,437,628

  1989–90

  12,631,256

  1990–91

  12,052,557

  11991–92

  13,018,868

  1Budget.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of employment training trainees gained qualifications in Scotland in each year since employment training started.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information about leavers is obtained through a survey which started in July 1990. Returns from leavers are incomplete. Data provided by this survey about the percentage of employment training trainees gaining a qualification or a credit toward one is set out in the table:

  Percentage of leavers between July 1980 to March 1990

  Percentage of leavers between April 1990 to October 1990

  Obtained qualification or credit

  22

  30

  Awaiting results at time of survey

  5

  4

  Public Drunkenness
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the decriminalisation of public drunkenness.

  Mr. Lang
  The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 gave the police power to take a drunken offender to a
  335
  designated place, as an alternative to arrest. The Government remain prepared to designate places as suitable for the care of drunken persons if the local statutory bodies so wish, and will in addition consider assisting with the capital costs of such projects. We have no proposals for further change to the criminal law in this regard.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer of 25 February,Official Report,column 385,when he expects to be able to publish the total electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland, as at 16 February 1991; and when he intends to write to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland, as at 16 February 1991, is as follows:

  Parliamentary Constituencies

  Number of electors as at 16 February 1991

  Number

  Scotland

  3,914,590

  Aberdeen North

  60,219

  Aberdeen South

  58,681

  Angus East

  62,769

  Argyll and Bute

  48,068

  Ayr

  66,126

  Banff and Buchan

  64,136

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,120

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  55,999

  Central Fife

  56,307

  Clackmannan

  49,140

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  47,861

  Clydesdale

  62,325

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  46,895

  Cunninghame North

  55,390

  Cunninghame South

  49,728

  Dumbarton

  57,730

  Dumfries

  61,235

  Dundee East

  58,935

  Dundee West

  60,218

  Dunfermline East

  50,369

  Dunfermline West

  51,186

  East Kilbride

  64,365

  East Lothian

  67,223

  Eastwood

  64,276

  Edinburgh Central

  56,048

  Edinburgh East

  46,800

  Edinburgh Leith

  57,415

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  56,453

  Edinburgh South

  61,682

  Edinburgh West

  60,556

  Falkirk East

  52,307

  Falkirk West

  50,479

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  54,855

  Glasgow Cathcart

  45,835

  Glasgow Central

  48,862

  Glasgow Garscadden

  42,270

  Glasgow Govan

  46,720

  Glasgow Hillhead

  56,003

  Glasgow Maryhill

  48,393

  Glasgow Pollok

  47,206

  Glasgow Provan

  37,838

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  53,777

  Glasgow Shettleston

  52,129

  Glasgow Springburn

  45,873

  336

  Number

  Gordon

  78,438

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  53,267

  Hamilton

  62,543

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  68,848

  Kilmamock and Loudoun

  62,513

  Kincardine and Deeside

  65,660

  Kirkcaldy

  52,419

  Linlithgow

  61,812

  Livingston

  62,070

  Midlothian

  60,875

  Monklands East

  49,226

  Monklands West

  50,132

  Moray

  63,357

  Motherwell North

  58,215

  Motherwell South

  51,236

  North East Fife

  53,399

  North Tayside

  55,252

  Orkney and Shetland

  31,355

  Paisley North

  47,770

  Paisley South

  49,091

  Perth and Kinross

  65,135

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  58,460

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  55,174

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  43,758

  Stirling

  58,296

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  61,806

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  39,608

  Western Isles

  23,073

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long it usually takes for information to be made publicly available as to whether a driver had been drinking alcohol before driving and being killed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about whether a driver killed in a road accident had consumed alcohol would become publicly available only if evidence to that effect was led at subsequent court proceedings, including any fatal accident inquiry.

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to include the specific statistical data of young persons under 18 years in each category of criminal convictions where alcohol was directly or indirectly involved in the crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on the age of persons convicted of drink-related offences such as drink driving, drunkenness and liquor licensing offences are already available. It is not feasible to collect regular statistical information on convictions for offences where alcohol was indirectly involved.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of launching Scottish Enterprise and its associated local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many criminal convictions there have been for offences against children where children were abused by a parent in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the relationship between offenders and their victims is not collected centrally.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all crime statistics in each Scottish police authority, indicating each police division in order of crimes recorded for each category and give the percentage of increase in each category for every year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally. Information for police authority areas is given in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why he called in the planning consent for housing development at Fishers road, Port Seton; when he expects to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These applications were notified to my right hon. Friend by East Lothian district council, the local planning authority, because the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department had objected to the use for housing of prime quality agricultural land which had not been allocated for development in the relevant development plans. My right hon. Friend called in the applications to allow him to examine more closely the arguments for releasing the land put forward by the district and regional councils, which both supported the proposal. The protection of prime quality agricultural land from development that could be satisfactorily accommodated elsewhere remains an objective of Government policy.

  I expect my right hon. Friend to issue his decision shortly and will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy of the decision letter.

  Self-employed People
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of people registered as self-employed in each Scottish parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The latest information available on the number of self-employed by parliamentary constituency comes from the 1981 census of population. This 338
  information is available from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to date of the public affairs department of Grampian health board in preparing and issuing press releases giving publicity to NHS trust status for Aberdeen royal infirmary, Foresterhill site; and whether any costs will be charged directly to the group of senior managers and consultants who have decided to submit an application for NHS trust status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The work involved is a small part of the activities of the public affairs department of Grampian health board, the cost of which is not separately identifiable. Health boards have a clear duty to provide assistance to trust candidates and it is quite appropriate for Grampian health board to issue press releases on behalf of the Foresterhill project manager and his team.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has submitted additional evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on British Steel since 25 March.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  On 27 March my right hon. Friend sent the Chairman of the Select Committee a copy of the final report on the Arthur D. Little study on the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland. My right hon. Friend has not submitted any evidence as such to the Committee since 25 March.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he last met the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, to discuss the steel industry; and if he will make a detailed statement on those discussions;

  (2) if he will publish a minute of his meeting of 25 March with Sir Leon Brittan in so far as it concerns the Scottish steel industry;

  (3) what information he received from Sir Leon Brittan on 25 March with regard to the European Commission's attitude to a potential sale of the Ravenscraig and Clydesdale steel works; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he has received from the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, relating to statements made by Sir Robert Scholey concerning the attitude of the Commission to a possible sale of Ravenscraig and Clydesdale steel works.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend met Sir Leon on 25 March. It was a private meeting at which a number of subjects were dismissed and my right hon. Friend does not intend to make a detailed statement. But one of the subjects was steel; Sir Leon was able to confirm the Commission's view that any refusal by British Steel to offer the Ravenscraig hot strip mill for sale to a European competitor did not amount to abuse of a dominant position. The Commission was not able to take a view on any proposed sale of the mill until it received a specific application. However, as my right hon. Friend indicated to the Select Committee on 12 December, he is not aware of
  339
  any powers that the Commission has to prevent the mill from being sold and continuing in production within the Community.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in Scotland in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In December 1990, the latest available date, there were 401,100 employees in employment in manufacturing in Scotland. This represents a small fall of 1,300 (0·3 per cent.) compared with December 1989. Over the same period the number of manufacturing employees in Great Britain fell by 130,000 (2·5 per cent.).

  Quarries
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quarries in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the British Geological Surveys publication "Directory of Mines and Quarries", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Firearms
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been fined for illegal possession of firearms in Scotland in each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1989, 36 people were fined for offences under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 340
  of illegal possession of a firearm. This figure excludes cases where illegal possession was not the main charge. Statistics for earlier years are not available.

  Motorway lighting
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used to decide whether any part of a motorway in Scotland should be provided with lighting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Lighting on motorways is normally provided when cost benefit calculations show that the benefits of a reduction in the number of night-time injury accidents would exceed the cost of its installation and subsequent maintenance. White-lining, cats' eyes and other markings are considered adequate in ordinary circumstances and generally, on motorways, lighting would afford only marginal road safety benefits which would not justify the cost.

  The detailed criteria are set out in the Scottish Office Technical Memorandum SH6/89 ("Appraisal of New and Replacement Lighting on Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways"), a copy of which I am arranging to be placed in the Library.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many environmental health officers have been employed by local authorities in Scotland for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: This information is not held centrally.
  341

SCOTLAND

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list all those areas in Scotland for which planning permission has been granted for opencast mining.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: Under current legislation my right hon. Friend deals only with applications for opencast coal operations which come before him on appeal. Up to 29 February 1984 opencast coal site applications were the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Thereafter, under transitional arrangements, they transferred to my right hon. Friend until the local planning authorities assumed responsibility on 11 December 1987. I understand from British Coal (Scotland), which holds central records, that the details requested are as follows:

  Other Sites

  Site name

  Location

  Planning authority area

  1. Licensed and operational

  Colinshiel

  Armadale

  West Lothian District

  Common Farm

  Lugar

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Craigmad

  California

  Falkirk District

  Crawick

  Crawick

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Croftangreen

  East Kilbride

  Hamilton District

  Easter Baton

  Shotts

  Motherwell District

  Humbug

  Crossgates

  Dunfermline District

  Kitleyknowe

  Carlops

  Borders Region

  Laigh Riggend

  Wattston

  Monklands District

  Legbrannock Farm

  Newhouse

  Motherwell District

  Nether Longford

  Stoneyburn

  West Lothian District

  North Rhodens

  Armadale

  West Lothian District

  Oakerdykes

  Slammannan

  Falkirk District

  Parkwood West

  Dollar

  Clackmannan District

  Sherriff Faulds

  Hamilton

  Hamilton District

  South Landridge

  Salsburgh

  Monklands District

  South Roughcastle

  Falkirk

  Falkirk District

  Tippetcraig North

  Slamarman

  Falkirk District

  Venture

  Newmains

  Motherwell District

  Waterloo

  Wishaw

  Motherwell District

  West Kelt

  Banknock

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District

  Woosethead

  Newhouse

  Motherwell District

  2. Sites believed to have planning permission but no licence

  Harehill

  Climpy

  Clydesdale District

  Garlaff Farm

  Cumnock

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  North Monkland Junction

  Slamannan

  Falkirk District

  Earnockmuir

  Hamilton

  Hamilton District

  Airth Mains

  Airth

  Falkirk District

  All information as at April 1991.

  Police Operations
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been killed in police pursuits in Scotland(a) excluding and (b) including police officers in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: Figures have been collected centrally only for the past four years. Since 1987 there have been six deaths—four in 1987, one in 1988, one in 1989 and none in 1990. All arose from incidents where a police vehicle was in direct or indirect pursuit of a fleeing suspect vehicle, or responding to an emergency call; none of those killed was a police officer.
  342

  British coal sites

  Site name

  Planning authority area

  1. Operational

  Darnconner

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Roverhill

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Chalmerston

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Horsecleugh

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Airdsgreen

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Libry Moor

  Nithsdale District

  Dalquhandy

  Clydesdale District

  Damside

  Motherwell District

  Blindwells

  East Lothian District

  Keirsbeath

  Dunfermline District

  Lambhill

  Perth and Kinross District

  2. Sites with planning permission

  (not operational)

  Westfield Link

  Kirkcaldy District

  Piperhill

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District

  Polkemmet

  West Lothian District

HEALTH

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects a breast cancer screening programme to become operational in the South and East Cumbria health authorities' areas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Screening will begin in South Cumbria at Barrow in June 1991 and in East Cumbria at Carlisle in September 1991. All eligible women should have received their first screening invitation by 1993.

  General Practitioner Targets
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners in Cleveland have achieved their targets for child immunisation, pre-school boosters and cervical cytology.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 31 March 1991 the following percentage of GPs in Cleveland qualified for target payments in respect of their achievements on 1 October 1990:

  Percentage of GPs achieving targets

  Higher

  Lower

  Total

  Childhood immunisation

  61

  32

  93

  Pre-school booster

  41

  37

  78

  Cervical cytology

  83

  17

  100

  I congratulate all those concerned on this excellent achievement.

  Immunisation (Children)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children are immunised against diphtheria, whooping cough and measles in the South and East Cumbria health authorities' areas together with the corresponding averages for the Northern region, England, the United Kingdom as a whole and the World Health Organisation's target percentage.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional figures for 1989–90 are as follows:

  Diphtheria

  Whooping Cough

  Measles (MMR)1

  South Cumbria DHA

  96

  85

  93

  East Cumbria DHA

  93

  83

  90

  Northern RHA

  90

  79

  86

  England

  89

  78

  84

  1 A combined vaccine against measles mumps and rubella (MMR) replaced measles-only vaccine from 1 October 1988.

  It is not possible to provide an average percentage for the United Kingdom as a whole because of differences in methods of collecting the figures. The World Health Organisation's target for its European region was 90 per cent. coverage by 1990. More recent estimates, by the COVER—Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly—programme, managed by the communicable disease surveillance centre, show that by February 1991 the percentages for England had reached 90 for diphtheria (and tetanus and polio), 89 for MMR and 85 for whooping cough.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by health authorities on the provision of speech therapy in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities spent £43·4 million on speech therapy services in 1989–90. This represents an increase in real terms of 138 per cent. since 1978–79.

  Appointments
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what way appointments to health authorities are considered and made.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints the chairman and non-executive members of regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. My right hon. Friend also appoints the chairmen of district health authorities and family health services authorities. Regional health authorities appoint the non-executive members of district health authorities and family health services authorities.

  There is no statutory requirement to consult. Nominations of suitable people willing to serve on a health authority from various sources are always welcome and considered.

  Hearing Therapists
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the future role of the hearing therapist profession; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hearing therapists play an important role in the rehabilitation and after-care of people with a hearing loss. Officials are in discussion with the British Society of Hearing Therapists and the national health service training directorate about the possibility of developing a national vocational qualification in hearing therapy.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the range of NHS hearing aids is reviewed; and what steps are taken to ensure that this range is updated in line with technical developments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Contracts for the standard range of NHS hearing aids are normally awarded for one or two year periods and are then subject to review and re-tender. Technical developments are kept under continuing review, having regard to clinical suitability, reliability and cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by his Department to regional health authorities to assist them with drawing up their budget allocation for hearing aids and for setting their staffing levels within the audiology service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. It is for health authorities to allocate resources for the purchase of hearing aids and audiology services in the light of local needs.

  Norwich DHA
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the expenditure by Norwich district health authority for the latest available year on the general practitioner contract, general practitioner fund holders, the hospital's internal market and the resource management initiative.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested.

  In 1989–90 the total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services within Norwich district health authority was £122,580,000 of which expenditure on hospital services amounted to £95,948,000.
  345
  The East Anglian regional health authority received £158,000 of central funds in 1990–91 to support resource management projects within Norwich district health authority.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Colin Walker, the chairman of East Anglian regional health authority, for details of expenditure on general practitioner contracts and general practitioner fund holders.

  Long-stay Patients
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has any plans to prevent the transfer by district health authorities of financial responsibility for the long-stay care of frail, elderly patients which occurs when such patients are discharged from long-stay hospital beds to private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department's guidance on hospital discharge procedures requires a patient who is to be discharged to a private nursing home to be notified in writing whether or not the health authority will meet the fees of the home under a contractual arrangement. It also makes it clear that no one should be unwillingly discharged to such care if it means that he, she or a relative will be personally responsible for the home's charges.

  United Kingdom Residents from Mauritius
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from the island of Mauritius resided in the United Kingdom at the last available date.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated number of people born in Mauritius but resident in the United Kingdom is 22,000. This estimate has been derived by averaging the results of the 1987, 1988, and 1989 labour force surveys.

TRANSPORT

  Fenchurch Street Rail Service
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals from 'British Rail to reduce the load factor on peak-time trains on the Fenchurch Street line to 100 per cent.

  Mr. Freeman
  The load factor objective for rolling stock of the type operated on the Fenchurch Street line is 110 per cent. with no standing over 20 minutes except through choice. Journeys to Fenchurch Street from Basildon take more than 20 minutes, so the load factor objective is, therefore, already 100 per cent. from there. We have received no proposals from British Rail to reduce the target to 100 per cent. throughout Network SouthEast.

  Motorways
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to extend the motorway network.

  Mr. Chope
  Our plans for extending the motorway network were set out in "Trunk Roads England into the 1990s" published in February last year. Subsequent proposals to upgrade the Al to motorway status from the M25 to Tyneside were announced in July 1990.

  Road Improvements, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major road improvements he plans for north Devon in co-operation with Devon county council during the next five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The 47-mile long north Devon link road was completed in 1989 at a cost of £47 million and the Barnstaple and Bideford bypasses were completed in 1987 and 1989 at a cost of £21 million and £17 million respectively.

  The level of investment in roads in north Devon in the next five years will not be as great, but schemes put forward by Devon county council for transport supplementary grant will be considered on their merits.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give starting dates for the public transport schemes in the London assessment studies that he intends should proceed.

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to the passage of relevant legislation, we hope that construction of the Lewisham extension of the Docklands light railway will begin in 1992 and construction of the east-west crossrail in 1993.

  Other schemes recommended in the assessment studies may be brought forward later. The alignment of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line has already been safeguarded.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the total cost to his Department of the work involved in the western environmental improvement route assessment study;

  (2) what was the total cost to his Department of the work involved in the South London assessment study; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the total cost to his Department of the work involved in the South Circular assessment study; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what was the total cost to his Department of the work involved in the west London assessment study; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what was the total cost to his Department of the work involved in the east London assessment study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of the four London assessment studies was:

  £ million

  South Circular

  2·9

  South London

  3·4

  West London

  2·7

  East London

  3·0

  The western environmental improvement route was a scheme in the national road programme. It had reached the public consultation stage, at a study cost of £1·1 million. The announcement of decisions on the assessment studies indicated that a number of the most important public transport schemes identified in the studies were under active consideration, that it had been decided not to proceed with any of the major road schemes recommended by consultants, but that the limited road improvements

  347
  specified would be pursued. Since then Bills to authorise east-west crossrail and the extension of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham have been announced, and the line of the Chelsea-Hackney line has been safeguarded. The limited road improvements specified have been subject to initial appraisal and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with BAA about the future of Prestwick airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Prestwick airport is one of a number of subjects which my right hon. and learned Friend has discussed with the senior management of BAA in recent months.

  London Orbital Motorway
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for an additional outer London orbital motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the projected trend in bus usage in London over the next two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that London Transport expects little overall change in bus usage in London over the next two years. The Government have issued a consultation paper on the deregulation of the provision of bus services in London and believe that such deregulation offers the best opportunity for increasing patronage in the longer term.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of British Rail regularly, to discuss a variety of issues.

  British Rail Investment
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it is policy to make approval for any BR investment proposals conditional upon orders being placed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's purchasing policy is to obtain the best overall value for money through competition. About 95 per cent. of British Rail's requirements for supplies and services are currently ordered within the United Kingdom. Decisions on the placing of railway orders are commercial matters for British Rail and it would be inappropriate for Government approvals of British Rail investment proposals to be conditional on orders being placed in the home market.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the 1991, 1992 and 1993 amount of public funds 348
  given to British Rail to improve passenger and goods access from Scotland to the continent via the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail plans to invest up to £1·4 billion on works linked to the channel tunnel in this financial year and the next two. BR's investment is financed from a combination of internal and external finance, including borrowing. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act forbids Government subsidy for international rail services.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out figures for rail investment, in cash and real terms, for the last 20 years, and the estimate for next year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Actual figures up to 1990–91 are listed in the table:

  Rail Investment

  Year

  Cash

  1990–91 Prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1970

  48

  329

  1971

  59

  371

  1972

  73

  424

  1973

  81

  440

  1974

  103

  468

  1975

  157

  568

  1976

  176

  561

  1977

  193

  541

  1978

  208

  526

  1979

  248

  537

  1980

  304

  556

  1981

  277

  462

  1982

  243

  379

  1983

  252

  375

  11984–85

  280

  397

  1985–86

  399

  536

  1986–87

  399

  519

  1987–88

  526

  648

  1988–89

  545

  626

  1989–90

  696

  752

  1990–91

  2822

  822

  112 month equivalent.

  2Estimated outturn.

  The definition of rail investment includes investment in Freightliners, British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and British Rail Engineering Ltd. but excludes the laying of continuous welded track which BR do not now classify as investment.

  Plans for this financial year and the next two—1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94—are given in the departmental report 1991 (Cm. 1507).

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving and extending the lighting on the M4 and other motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  The lighting requirements on all motorways in England, including the M4, are kept under continuous review. Plans are in hand for more lighting on the Ml, M5, M20, M40, M56 and on the M62. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the M4 motorway in Wales.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his most recent estimate of the potential safety improvements and increased capacity of motorways resulting from the installation of lighting.
  349
  Mr. Chope
  Research in this country and elsewhere has shown that the average reduction in night-time accidents attributable to road lighting is about 30 per cent. There is, however, substantial variation between locations, depending on type of road and other factors. Evidence is not available on the effect of lighting on motorway capacity.

  Rail Services (South-East)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail services in the south-east.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I frequently discuss NSE services with the chairman of British Rail.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will increase the funding for London Regional Transport for 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are reviewing the level of funding required by London Transport in 1991–92. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers travelled on London Transport on average(a) in 1990, (b) five years ago and(c) 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Passenger journeys on London Transport

  million

  Year

  Underground

  Buses1

  Docklands Light Railway

  1975

  601

  1,455

  Nil

  1985

  740

  1,154

  Nil

  1990

  775

  1,220

  8·2

  1Including tendered services.

  London Underground (Crime)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the latest figures for violent crimes on the London Underground.

  Mr. Freeman
  I was pleased to announce on 20 March that violent crime on London Underground has been reduced for the third successive year. In 1990, there were 1,341 violent crimes recorded on the underground—a reduction of 23 per cent. on the previous year—while passengers made some 800 million journeys.

  A2 Roadworks
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the interruption of traffic during the roadworks on the A2 from the M2 to London, since 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The roadworks concerned are part of a phased programme of contracts to carry out essential major maintenance and provide hard shoulders along the whole of the A2 trunk road in north-west Kent between the London boundary and the M2 Motorway.
  350
  I regret that works of this magnitude on such a heavily trafficked road inevitably cause some degree of disturbance. But my Department will continue to take all practicable measures to keep inconvenience and delay to a minimum, compatible with the safety both of the public and the road operatives.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received from British Rail any proposals on the location of the recent London terminus for the channel tunnel, in the light of the Government's declared commitment to the Chelsea-Hackney crossrail.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's study of alternative routes for a high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel includes the siting of a second London terminal. We expect to receive the board's proposals soon.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss a channel tunnel freight terminal in Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer 1 gave him on 11 March.

  East Coast Motorway
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to consider the possible environmental consequences of the construction of the proposed east coast motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  Proposals for an east coast motorway were the subject of a feasibility study commissioned by a consortium of local authorities and private sector organisations. This Department was not involved.

  Airlines
  28 Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy towards maintaining a multi-airline industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government's policy is to promote free and fair competition in aviation, so that there remains a healthy, competitive airline industry in the United Kingdom which meets the needs of users. The market is diverse enough to sustain a variety of United Kingdom-based carriers as well as their foreign competitors.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many awards have been won by the advertising campaign to reduce drink driving.

  Mr. Chope
  The Christmas 1990 campaign won two major awards last week in the British television advertising awards 1991. Twelve other major awards have been won by the "Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives" campaign since 1987.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long it usually takes for information to he made publicly available as to whether a driver had been drinking alcohol before driving and being killed.
  351
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is possible for information about whether a driver killed in a road accident had consumed alcohol to become publicly available in a variety of circumstances, for example, during criminal proceedings against someone else involved in the same accident. But such information is most likely to emerge from any publicity given to a coroners' inquest into the death of the driver if the coroner, who is an independent judicial officer, admits evidence of this nature at the hearing. The date of any inquest is a matter for the coroner to decide and the length of time between the death and the inquest will vary according to the circumstances of each individual case.

  A66
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a time scale for all the improvements to the A66 Scotch Corner-Penrith road which he had in mind.

  Mr. Chope
  There are three schemes in the road programme for the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith with a current timetable as follows:

  Bowes to County Boundary

  Under construction

  Expected completion—Autumn 1992

  Stainsmore to Banksgate

  Order Publication—Summer 1991

  Start of Works—Spring 1993

  Stainburn to Great Clifton

  Improvements to A13 trunk road

  Nature of improvement

  A13/Butcher Row

  Junction improvement

  —

  A13/West India Dock Road (Interim)

  Junction improvement

  —

  A13/West India Dock Road (Final)

  Junction improvement

  Side Roads/CPO

  A13/Blackwall Tunnel Cotton Street

  Junction improvement

  CPO

  A13/Leamouth Road

  Junction improvement/Widening

  —

  A13/Ironbridge/Canning Town Flyover

  Widening/New Junction

  Line/Side Roads Orders/CPO

  A13/A112 Prince Regent Lane

  Junction improvement

  Line/Side Roads Orders/CPO Exchange Land Certificate

  A13//A117 Woolwich Manor Way

  Junction improvement

  Line/Side Roads Orders/CPO Exchange Land Certificate

  A13/Movers Lane

  Junction improvement

  Line/Side Roads Orders/CPO

  A13/West of Heathrow to Mar Dyke

  New Trunk Road

  Line/Side Roads Orders/CPO/ Detrunking

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will tabulate in the official Report all road works under way and which will be undertaken on the A13 Commercial road and East India Dock road between Aldgate and Canning Town until the end of 1991; and what are the estimated consequential minimum flows of traffic in each direction in passenger car units per hour for each phase of the works.

  Mr. Chope
  The A13 Commercial road from Aldgate to Butcher Row is the responsibility of the London borough of Tower Hamlets. The Department has two schemes under way this year on the A13 between Butcher Row and Canning Town. One is at the junction with West India Dock road where there are five remaining works phases. A minimum of one lane in each direction will be kept open, widening to two lanes at the approaches to the traffic signals. The second is at Leamount road which has two remaining works phases with a minimum of two lanes in each direction. The capacity of a lane under these
  352

  order Publication—Summer 1992

  Start of works—Summer 1994

  Environmental Assessment Studies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to update the manual of environmental appraisal to include the issues raised by the European Community's directive on environmental assessment; and if he intends to consult outside organisations on this matter.

  Mr. Chope
  It is a measure of the comprehensiveness of the manual of environmental appraisal that no changes were necessary to implement in full the European Council directive on environmental assessment (85/337/EEC).

  A13
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for changes to the Al3 highway; and whether there will be an opportunity for the public to object and a public inquiry held into any of its stages.

  Mr. Chope
  A number of improvements are under way or planned for the Al3 trunk road. These are listed in the table. Where there is a need for orders under the Highways Act or legislation relating to compulsory purchase the public will have the opportunity to object after draft orders are published. Depending on the status, number and content of those objections the Secretary of State will decide whether to hold a public inquiry.

  circumstances is about 1,500 passenger car units per hour, although these figures are likely to be constrained by the junctions. There will be three areas of resurfacing with renewal of footways and other essential maintenance works including work by statutory undertakers which may affect traffic flows from time to time.

  Tolls
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all tolls charged on roads within the responsibility of his Department, and the recipients of the income.

  Mr. Chope
  The only tolled facility for which the Department is entirely responsible is the Severn bridge on the M4. Tolls are 1 for cars and £2 for HGVs. The income accrues to the Exchequer.
  353
  There are other tolled crossings, for which the Department is not responsible, which link trunk roads or motorways. They are:

  Tolls

  Location

  Car

  HGV

  Recipient of toll income

  Dartford Tunnels (A282/M25)

  80p

  £2·10

  Dartford River Crossing Ltd.

  Humber Bridge (A 15)

  £1·60

  £6·50—£10·90

  Humber Bridge Board

  Tyne Tunnel (Al)

  50p

  £1·00

  Tyne and Wear PTA

  Tamar Bridge (A38)

  40p

  £1·35—£1·80

  Tamar Bridge and Torpoint

  Ferry Joint Committee

  Selby Bridge (A19—A63)

  7p

  16p

  Company of Proprietors of Selby Bridge

  Dunham Bridge (A57)

  15p

  lOp per axle

  Dunham Bridge Company

  1per tonne (gross weight)

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total level of grant from his Department to London Transport for the Jubilee line extension; if he will list its distribution by year; and for each year what percentage it is of the total London Transport grant allocation.

  Mr. Freeman
  In Common with other public expenditure, the grant to be paid to LT is determined only for a three-year forward period. Figures have therefore only been settled for the years up to 1993–94. These are as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  40

  121

  251

  376

  Percentage of total grant to LT

  7

  18

  33

  36

  Trunk Roads
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whom he intends to consult on the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report before formulating policies to implement any recommendations.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department will consult interested parties before implementing major changes to the values or underlying principle of the inputs to trunk road scheme appraisal. SACTRA itself has already consulted widely in preparing its report on environmental assessment.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment to report on its review of environmental evaluation; and if he will give the working title and the anticipated title of the report.

  Mr. Chope
  The report from SACTRA is now not expected until late summer. The title of the report has not been decided.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking in respect of the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on the prospect of nature conservation in the appraisal of trunk roads.

  Mr. Chope
  The report from SACTRA has not yet been received and is now not expected until late summer.

  M66
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there will be a further public inquiry into the M66 line order at the M66/A664 interchange; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. While the route of the motorway is fixed a new connecting roads order for the M66/A664 junction was published last January. The inquiry will provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on or object to those proposals.

  Drivers (Qualifying Age)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change the qualifying age to enable people to drive a motor vehicle in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  St John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is in contact with the St.John Ambulance Brigade and will be giving publicity to the "Over to you, John" appeal through its in-house journal.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received recently from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and what response he has made to them.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received two reports this year. "Information and Mobility" presents the findings of a public hearing held by the committee in March 1990 on the importance of information and communications in enabling disabled people to travel. The second report, "Mobility for Britain's Entire Population", develops the committee's views on future policy direction towards achieving a public transport system which is fully accessible to disabled people.

  These latest reports, together with earlier reports from the committee, are being studied and will contribute significantly to my Department's thinking in this area.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to introduce to inform drivers of the contents of the Highway Code.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the responsibility of all road users to be aware of the contents of the Highway Code. The code is already widely available through HMSO, booksellers and an increasing number of other retail outlets. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency also supplies copies on request to applicants for provisional driving licences. My Department takes every opportunity to promote increased public awareness of the safety measures in the code.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on the basis of the toll assumptions in the table in clause 9 of the Severn Bridges Bill, when payment for the present Severn bridge will be completed and what will be the assumed gross income in the final year; and on the basis of the same table, what is the assumed income of the present bridge in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.

  Mr. Chope
  I very much regret that due to an administrative error there was a delay in responding to the right hon. Member's earlier questions on this subject. I can now refer him to the answer I gave him on 18 April, columns 214–15.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to raise the level of public awareness of the changes to the law resulting from regulations coming into force on 1 October 1990 concerning the supervision of learner drivers;

  (2) what steps he is taking to monitor public awareness of the changes to the law resulting from regulations coming into force on 1 October 1990 concerning the supervision of learner drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 16 April 1991]: The regulations were drawn up after extensive consultation, and three separate press notices were issued to publicise their introduction, which were widely reported.

  In addition, details of the new qualifying conditions for supervising drivers are set out in a leaflet which is issued with all new provisional driving licences. The leaflet stresses that it is the responsibility of the learner driver to ensure that the supervising driver is appropriately qualified and points out that it is an offence for both parties if those conditions are not met.

  The new requirement is also set out on the provisional licence itself, and described in the guide for learner drivers, "Your Driving Test", published by the Driving Standards Agency.

  M20
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he now has an opening date for the M20 motorway Ashford to Hollingbourne section.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: The M20 motorway between Maidstone and Ashford is being built
  356
  under two contracts. The first is due for completion this month, but cannot be opened until the second contract is ready. The second contract is due for completion in July, but work is ahead of programme and I now hope that it will be possible for the road to be opened before July.

  I shall inform my hon. Friend as soon as an opening date is fixed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the current debts for rent and rates owed to Lambeth council which have not been written off;

  (2) what part of the budget of Lambeth council of £315·5 million for 1991–92 represents payment of interest on moneys borrowed against (a) rent arrears and (b) rate and poll tax arrears;

  (3) how much money is currently borrowed by Lambeth council against (a) rent arrears and (b) rate and poll tax arrears and exclusive of the additional sums which he has permitted Lambeth to borrow.

  Mr. Key
  On the latest information provided to my Department by the council, Lambeth is owed £28·9 million in respect of rents, £28·0 million in respect of domestic rates and £13·7 million in respect of business rates.

  It is not possible to provide the further information requested by the hon. Member since local authority debt is managed corporately and loans are not raised against particular assets.

  Emissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to press for existing EC directives on sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide to be revised to reflect World Health Organisation guidelines.

  Mr. Baldry
  The preambles to the present directives make it clear that the limit values for which they provide are based on work by the World Health Organisation.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many nitrogen oxide monitoring stations there are in the United Kingdom; what is the average number of such stations amongst the EC nations; and how many such stations there are in(a) Holland and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department funds 12 nitrogen oxide samplers in the United Kingdom, seven of which are for the purposes of the European directive on nitrogen dioxide. The number of directive sites in other EC countries is as follows

  Number

  Belgium

  21

  Germany

  200

  Denmark

  11

  Spain

  15

  France

  85

  Greece

  33

  Ireland

  6

  Italy

  34

  Luxemburg

  4

  357

  Number

  Netherlands

  53

  Portugal

  17

  I understand that in 1989 there were 1,337 nitrogen oxide monitoring sites in Japan.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites used for the monitoring of sulphur dioxide(a) in 1982 and (b) in 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for a list of these sites to be placed in the Library.

  Estate Action Schemes
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment h ow much money has been spent each year since 1987 under the estate action scheme in(a) Stockton, (b) Middlesbrough and (c) Hartlepool; and how many dwellings have been improved or created.

  Mr. Yeo
  The table shows the amounts approved by the Department under the estate action scheme in each financial year since 1986–87 in respect of Stockton, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.

  Stockton £

  Middlesbrough £

  Hartlepool £

  1986–87

  341,243

  424,500

  562,271

  1987–88

  186,895

  181,118

  842,240

  1988–89

  472,000

  810,117

  1,546,107

  1989–90

  1,593,549

  272,026

  2,069,192

  1990–91

  764,019

  221,189

  1,059,150

  Total

  3,357,706

  1,908,950

  6,078,960

  As a result of these approvals a total of 2,212 dwellings have been improved in the three local authority areas concerned.

  The figures in the table represent a high proportion of the total expenditure on estate action schemes. They were supplemented by resources from the authorities' mainstream housing investment programme. It will take a little time to establish the total expenditure on these schemes and I will write to my hon. Friend when I have full details.

  Smoke Control Areas
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many successful prosecutions there have been of suppliers of unauthorised petroleum coke in smoke control areas throughout the United Kingdom in each year since 1987; and if he will identify the local authority area and the name of the supplier.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available to my Department.

  Advice Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether standard spending assessments take account of the provision of advice services and section 38 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  Provision for these services up to a standard level is covered by the all other services element of standard spending assessments.

  Trade in Wildlife
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are currently being examined in order to impose and extend the controls on the import of species which are unlikely to survive in captivity.

  Mr. Baldry
  Discussions are taking place in the European Community on a proposed regulation to improve and extend the controls on trade in wildlife. This includes provisions that would enable restrictions to be imposed on the import of species which are unlikely to survive shipment or captivity. A draft of the regulation is expected to be published for consultation early in the summer.

  Travelling Fairs
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultations with local authorities on travelling fairs;

  (2) what recent representations he has received from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain on problems associated with travelling fair grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have received no representations from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain about the problems associated with travelling fair grounds, nor have I consulted local authorities about travelling fairs. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside on 20 December, column 273, about sites from which travelling showpeople base their activities. My officials have prepared some draft planning policy guidance about these sites, and invited comments from the Showmen's Guild. When we have these comments we intend to issue a revised draft for public consultation, involving the local authority associations.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will examine all outstanding poll tax cases currently the subject of prosecution before the courts with respect to reviewing continuation of the prosecutions.

  Mr. Key
  No. Community charge payers are under an obligation to pay their charge and local authorities must make all reasonable efforts to recover the charge from those who have not paid.

  Parks Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he is making to the fourth international parks conference in Caracas in 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government's statutory advisor, the Countryside Commission for England, intends to submit a number of papers to the organisers, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, for possible inclusion in the programme of the fourth world congress on national parks and protected areas. It is for the IUCN to determine the final programme.

  Kuwait (Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the results to be available of the UNEP environmental assessment in relation to the effect of hydrocarbons in the food chain and elsewhere in Kuwait; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 17 April,Official Report, c. 183. UNEP estimates that the completion date for its survey and assessment work is on environmental damage generally likely to be 15 July 1991.

  UN Conference on the Environment and Development
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for consultations in the preparatory process to the United Nations conference on the environment and development which is due to be held in Brazil in 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 April 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 10 December to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), c. 266.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to require the water companies to enable customers who wish to do so to spread their payments over monthly periods of at least 10 months.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: No. Companies are already required by condition G of their individual instruments of appointment to submit to the Director General of Water Services for approval a copy of a code of practice for customers, describing arrangements for the payment of bills by domestic customers including information about payment by instalments and budget plans.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek a reduction in, or removal of, the EC co-responsibility levy on milk.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have always opposed the co-responsibility levy and will continue to press for its abolition provided that the cost is offset by price cuts on a sufficient scale.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is a minimum retail price per pint for the sale of liquid milk to the consumer.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. Statutory controls over the retail price of milk ceased with effect from 1 January 1985.

  Whaling
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to promote within the European Economic Community a total ban on commercial and scientific whaling.
  360
  Mr. Curry
  The European Community has not assumed responsibility for policy on whaling, but no whaling. whether commercial or scientific, is believed to take place in Community waters. Further, the Community prohibits trade in whale products through its implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species. We will continue to press within the International Whaling Commission for the conservation of whales and for scientific research to be carried out by non-lethal methods wherever possible.

  Honey
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a study of the problem of residues, brought about by the use of acaracides in the treatment of honey bees, in imported and home-produced honey, and the related effect of herbicides.

  Mr. Maclean
  Supplies of imported and home-produced honey are sampled for analysis for the presence of the antimicrobial compound fumagillin and for various pesticides. We have no plans at present to extend this testing to include acaracides and herbicides but will keep the situation under review.

  Farm Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to introduce regulations to control the disposal of farm wastes, to replace the code of good agricultural practice.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to do so. The unconsented pollution of controlled waters, whether from farm wastes or any other cause, is already an offence under section 107 of the Water Act 1989. The Government recently increased from £2,000 to £20,000 the maximum fine applicable in magistrates courts for such offences. The forthcoming new code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water will give detailed practical advice to farmers on how to avoid pollution. Failure to comply with it could be taken into account in any legal proceedings for a pollution offence.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the long-term damage to wildlife of lochs, streams, and rivers caused by chronic pollution from agricultural runoff, after slurry has been spread on fields.

  Mr. Curry
  Land run-off accounts for approximately 10 per cent. of serious pollution incidents caused by agriculture, and about 2 per cent. of serious incidents from all causes. The Department is helping to support a research project designed to provide detailed information on the effect of land use on river quality and fish populations in the River Torridge catchment. We share the concern to reduce farm pollution of watercourses and the Government have introduced a wide range of measures designed to help achieve this.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dip
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep carcases were tested in the past five years for organophosphates residues, expressed as a percentage of all sheep slaughtered.
  361
  Mr. Curry
  In the five years 1986–90, 889 sheep carcases were tested for organophosphate residues which represents a little over 0·001 per cent. of the number slaughtered but about 1 per cent. of the number of sheep flocks in the United Kingdom. No levels hazardous to human health have been found, but should that situation change a more intensive sampling regime would be introduced.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations he is conducting into possible contamination by organophosphates of water supplies, sheepmeat and farm and market workers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Organophosphorus pesticides generally decompose rapidly within the environment and are not normally expected to reach water. All water companies have been asked to consult ADAS about the use of all pesticides within their water supply areas. Companies have drawn up lists for monitoring purposes of those pesticides which are likely to reach water supplies. In some areas this list includes organophosphorus pesticides. The results of monitoring have not indicated problems with these pesticides.

  Monitoring for organophosphorus residues in United Kingdom-produced sheepmeat is carried out under the national surveillance scheme. The results for 1989 are included in the recently published annual report of the veterinary medicines directorate. No residues were found above the advisory maximum limit.

  The Health and Safety Executive has commissioned a three-year research project into the frequency and severity of acute pesticide poisoning incidents, including organophosphorus and whether they can result in long-term health effects. The executive also surveyed 25 sheep dipping sites during 1990 to ascertain the health effects of exposure to sheep dips and in particular to those containing organophosphorus.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is planning to introduce new regulations or recommendations on the use and disposal of sheep dip.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is already an offence under the Water Act 1989 to pollute a watercourse. In 1988 and 1989 four farmers were prosecuted for sheep dip pollution incidents. No further regulations are planned.

  Under the Medicines Act 1968, sheep dip products must be licensed before they can be marketed. Existing licensed sheep dip products are currently subject to review by scientists in the veterinary medicines directorate to ensure that the most up-to-date safety standards apply. The review must be completed this year under EC rules. Any sheep dip products which fail to meet these standards will have their licences revoked.

  New guidance notes on disposal are currently being prepared by the VMD and will be available in July. A code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water is also being prepared by the Ministry, which will include advice about use and disposal of sheep dip. This will also be published in July.

  Animals (Live Exports)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps are being taken to improve the conditions of animals who are sent to the continent as live exports; and if he will make a statement.
  362
  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions are continuing on Commission proposals for a new Community regulation on protection of animals during transport. The Government are pressing for the adoption of high welfare standards for all transport of animals in the Community.

  Fishing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels in each port in England have been put up for sale since the introduction of the EC fishing regulations that came into force this year.

  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 23 January at column 245

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 18 April.

  Mr. Curry
  I attended the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 18 April 1991 with Lord Strathclyde, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office.

  The Council had an exchange of views on the Commission's communication about the common fisheries policy. There was general recognition that fishing effort against many stocks needs to be reduced. I made it clear that the basic framework of the common fisheries policy is sound, but some improvements are needed. In particular total allowable catches and quotas, together with the principle of relative stability, are a central element, but need better support from improved technical conservation measures and enforcement. The Commission will now prepare by the end of this year the report provided for in the basic CFP regulation 170/83.

  The Council had a further discussion of the Commission's proposals for technical conservation measures. The Council will return to this issue at its next meeting in July.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the Biodiversity convention being prepared for the United Nations conference on Environment and Development being held in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 4.26 of the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", (Cmnd. 1200), confirming the Government's support for international efforts led by the United Nations Environment Programme to agree a global convention for the conservation of biological diversity. It is intended that the convention should be ready for signing during the 1992 conference.

  flooding
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what local authority representations he has had in the last two years about the way his Department funds and administers sea defence, coast protection and river flooding schemes; what changes he has made to his policy in the past two years; and if he will now reconsider his current policy.
  363
  Mr. Curry
  During the past two years, we have received 40 representations from local authorities about the funding and administration of sea defence, coast protection and river flooding schemes. These were primarily about the availability of capital allocation or supplementary credit approvals for schemes; changes to the method of calculating the grant rate for coast protection work which was made necessary because of the changes to the system of financing of local authorities; general questions about the approval and progress of schemes; and about the level and availability of grant. There have been no changes in the policy over the last two years with regard to either the funding or administration of such schemes and we have no plans to make changes in the foreseeable future. We have continued to increase the grant available for flood and coastal defence work, and over the period from 1989–90 to 1993–94 provision will have increased by nearly 80 per cent. from £35·9 million to £63·4 million.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now bring forward proposals to enable one authority to be responsible for sea defence and coast protection and river flooding prevention to replace the existing multi-authority system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The present arrangements, which take full advantage of local knowledge, are well understood by the authorities concerned. The arrangements have worked well over time and I see no reason to change them.

  Artificial Reef
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation his Department has made of the National Rivers Authority scheme to build an artificial reef off the shore off the north Norfolk coast; and what lessons he expects from the scheme proposals to be applicable to the remaining Norfolk and whole of Suffolk coastlines.

  Mr. Curry
  The National Rivers Authority's proposals to build an offshore reef to protect the Happisburgh to Winterton frontage of the north Norfolk coast are expected to be submitted to our engineers early in May. The Department has been kept fully informed of developments on the scheme as the NRA's consultants have progressed the design of the scheme, in the light of the knowledge generated by the east coast management study. Our normal technical appraisal of the proposals for grant purposes can be carried out only once the scheme has been received, so it is too early to reach any firm conclusions about the proposals, or to make an assessment of whether it would be possible to apply a similar approach to the remaining Norfolk and Suffolk coastline.

EMPLOYMENT

  Ex-offenders (Training)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is reconsidering the methods of funding to voluntary organisations to ensure the provision of sufficient special needs training for ex-offenders; and whether he intends to make more funds available for such training.
  364
  Mr. Jackson
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Clerical Work, London
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of the change in employment opportunities in the central London clerical field(a) over the past two years and (b) over the next two years.

  Mr. Jackson
  In January 1991, at jobcentres in inner London, there were 668 unfilled job vacancies in the clerical and machine operators occupational class. This compares with 2,943 in January 1989. The Department does not forecast vacancy figures.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed are registered in the Peterlee and Seaham areas; and what the numbers were year by year since 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is available in the Library, and is shown in the table which gives the number of claimants in the Peterlee and Seaham jobcentres areas who were unemployed for at least a year as at January 1987 and each subsequent January.

  Date

  Total

  Peterlee jobcentre area

  January 1987

  1,454

  January 1988

  1,326

  January 1989

  892

  January 1990

  446

  January 1991

  331

  Seaham jobcentre area

  January 1987

  1,000

  January 1988

  907

  January 1989

  758

  January 1990

  412

  January 1991

  331

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees in employment training are(a) under 25 years and (b) in each five year age range between 26 and 65 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Thirty-five per cent. of trainees in employment-training were under 25 years of age at 31 October 1990, the latest date for which data are available. The other information is not available in the form required, except at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployed Claimants, London
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed claimants in(a) London Docklands, (b) the London borough of Newham, (c) the London borough of Southwark and (d) the London borough of Tower Hamlets in each year since 1981, as a percentage of unemployed claimants in Greater London.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information, available from June 1983, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ensure that persons on Government training schemes will continue to enjoy the conditions applicable at the time of their embarking on the courses; and if he will take steps to restore the travel allowance to Mrs. P. Horsley of 9 Byron avenue, Southend on Sea, Essex for the final four weeks of her course at the Manor college, South Benfleet.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Essex training and enterprise council is responsible for Mrs. Horsley's training. Essex TEC is contractually obliged to ensure that employment training and youth training trainees already in training in its area immediately prior to the start of the financial year 1991–92 should remain in training, be offered an individual training plan identical, or closely similar to that formerly being pursued, and should be offered terms and conditions of training, remuneration and assistance towards support costs at least as good, item by item, as those previously available to those trainees. My officials are looking into Mrs. Horsley's situation in these terms, and I will write to my hon. Friend shortly when I have their findings.

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people under 18 years there are in the borough of Blyth valley who are not employed and have not had a youth training opportunity offered to them.

  Mr. Jackson
  Blyth Valley is part of the area covered by the North Tyne training and enterprise council. The TEC has a clear contractual duty to ensure that every young person under 18 not in school or a job who is seeking YT entry should have the offer, and if necessary re-offers, of a suitable training place. No particular problems have been reported concerning the YT guarantee for young people in Blyth Valley. The TEC and the Employment Department are jointly committed to maintain the guarantee.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department encourages all staff to contribute to a whole range of charities by means of payroll giving.

  Regular reminders are issued to staff about this facility, but, in view of the large number of competing charities, it would be invidious to single out any particular case.

  Open College
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the Government have allocated to the Open college for each year since its establishment in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms, indexed so its first year equals 100; and what was spent in start-up costs for the Open college.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have provided pump priming funding to the Open college since its launch in 366
  September 1987 with the aim of improving the skills of the work force by making open learning opportunities more widely available. To date the college has received £26.9 million. No separate funding has been supplied to the college in respect of start up costs.

  The allocations made to the college each year are as follows:

  Cash terms £ million

  Real terms1 £ million

  Index

  1986–87

  2·0

  2·0

  100

  1987–88

  10·0

  9·5

  474

  1988–89

  5·7

  5·0

  252

  1989–90

  3·8

  3·1

  156

  1990–91

  5·4

  4·2

  209

  11986–87 prices.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update his answers to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 14 March 1990, columns 252–56 and 2 April 1990, columns 460–62, concerning wages councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  As the information requested is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member enclosing the information and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries.

  Young Workers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the total annual wage bill for the latest available year in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany is accounted for by the local annual wage bill of those under the age of 18.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Motor Components
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are employed in the motor components industry in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on the motor components industry for France and Germany is not readily available.

  Information at United Kingdom level is available only from the census of employment. At September 1989, the latest available date, there were 100,000 employees in the motor vehicle parts industry—activity heading 3530 of the standard industrial classification 1980. This covers the manufacture of motor vehicle parts made wholly or mainly of metal. Those engaged in the manufacture of other types of motor vehicle parts are classified elsewhere and are not separately available.

  Wages
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many male and female workers earn non-adult rates in the Northern region and in each of the counties in the region.
  367
  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the New Earnings Survey is provided in the following table:

  Numbers of employees in the NES sample, April 1990

  Total

  Of which: on non-adult rate

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Northern region

  Male

  4,962

  169

  3·4

  Female

  4,194

  85

  2·0

  Tyne and Wear

  Male

  1,870

  63

  3·4

  Female

  1,687

  23

  1·4

  Cleveland

  Male

  867

  34

  3·9

  Female

  704

  20

  2·8

  Cumbria

  Male

  939

  39

  4·2

  Female

  700

  23

  3·3

  Durham

  Male

  888

  23

  2·6

  Female

  733

  12

  1·6

  Northumberland

  Male

  398

  10

  2·5

  Female

  370

  7

  1·9

  Note: Since the NES sample is mostly drawn from PAYE records, many of those with earnings below the income tax threshold are not covered. This may be expected to affect employees on non-adult rates more than other employees, and so the proportions in the sample who are in this category may not accurately reflect the proportions in the working population as a whole.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number and proportion of families with four or more children where neither parent is in full-time paid work.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is not possible to distinguish between full-time and part-time paid work for the spouse of the head of the family unit. The answer relates to single and two-parent families with four or more children where neither parent has paid employment. Preliminary estimates from the GB Labour Force Survey for spring 1990 indicate that there were 76,000 such families, representing 28 per cent. of the total number of families with four or more dependent children.

  Quarries
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies have been charged for failing to keep quarries safe in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since 1985 in Scotland there has been one prosecution of a quarry company and two prosecutions of quarry owners, all in 1989. Since 1985 in England and Wales, one company was prosecuted in 1988; four in 1989 and one in 1990; two owners were prosecuted in 1989; and one manager in 1988.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many quarries in Scotland were visited and inspected by Health and Safety Executive officials in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in 1989-90, Health and Safety Executive quarry inspectors made 870 inspection visits to quarrying activities in Scotland.

  Wheal Jane Mine, Cornwall
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what development of tourism grants have been(a) applied for by and (b) granted to the Wheal Jane mine, Cornwall; and what was the amount of each application and grant.
  368
  Mr. Jackson
  No applications for grant assistance have been received by the English tourist board, nor have any offers of assistance been made, in respect of the Wheal Jane mine.

  Bishopton ROF
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions British Aerospace have been prosecuted for safety offences at the former royal ordnance factory, Bishopton, Renfrewshire; and what was the result of each case.

  Mr. Jackson
  Royal Ordnance plc, Bishopton, a subsidiary of British Aerospace, has been prosecuted once for a breach of health and safety legislation since taking over the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton in 1985. The company pleaded guilty and was fined £1,600.

  Quarries
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time spent each year on quarry inspections by the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland; and what is the average time taken for each quarry inspection.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available on the time spent each year on quarry inspections by the Health and Safety Executive before 1 April 1989.

  However, between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 HSE spent 2,543 hours inspecting all quarrying activities in Scotland. The average time taken for each quarry inspection in Scotland in 1989–90 was three hours.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials are employed by the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland to visit and inspect quarries.

  Mr. Jackson
  On 1 April 1991 HSE employed one full-time quarries inspector in Scotland. However, other HSE staff, including factory and specialist inspectors and staff from the employment medical advisory service, may visit quarries to carry out investigations or surveys or for other reasons, as part of the planned programme of workplace visits of HSE's field operations division.
  369
  In addition, a senior inspector of quarries based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne has responsibilities for quarries in Scotland and will also make visits as necessary.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will propose legislation to make it a criminal offence in Scotland to leave detonation cord and detonators on the surface land in and around a quarry 370
  without supervision

  Mr. Jackson
  The Quarries (Explosives) Regulations 1988 already require quarry managers to ensure that explosives and detonators are kept securely. In particular the manager is required to ensure that at all times explosives and detonators are either in a locked explosives

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

The Gulf War: Aid to Jordan
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are prepared to give to Jordan to alleviate the consequences of the Gulf war.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have a long-standing bilateral aid programme for Jordan and that will continue. We provided close to £11 million in humanitarian aid last year, both bilaterally and through the European Community, and have added over £3 million this year. In addition the European Community is making £105 million available to alleviate the effects of the Gulf crisis, of which the United Kingdom's share will be £20 million.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for that Answer. Perhaps I may ask him this supplementary question. Is he aware that evacuees passing through Jordan from August to December 1990 numbered 800,000 and that Jordanians and Palestinians returning to Jordan from Kuwait numbered 200,000, in addition to the enormous number of Palestinian refugees already in Jordan? Is my noble friend also aware that the children among those refugees, who have to be placed in schools and universities within Jordan, number 57,000 and that there is no room for them?
Lord Reay: Yes, my Lords. According to the figures that I have, Jordan received between 700,000 and 800,000 foreign nationals from Iraq and Kuwait during the early days of the Gulf crisis. We greatly appreciated Jordan's efforts to ease their plight.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord say from the figures that he gave the House whether there was an increase in the allocation last year? Is it the case that the United States has reduced its aid since the Gulf war?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot comment on the position of the United States. In the case of the United Kingdom, as I said, Britain has a long-standing bilateral aid programme. That amounted to £4.7 million in 1990-91 and is expected to be £5.23 million in the current financial year. We also urged early disbursement of European Community aid.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the Government's attitude towards aid to Jordan at this time, recognising that Jordan has suffered a great deal as a result of the war, partly because of the Jordanian Government's stance towards Iraq and towards the coalition. Is it not the case, as my noble friend said, that the United States stopped aid to Jordan on 10th April last, thus depriving Jordan of a very substantial sum of money? Can the Minister say when the Gulf Co-operation Council, which could provide additional aid to Jordan, is meeting next? As the noble Lord is aware, Jordan is in a parlous economic position at the present time. Are the Government supporting aid from the Gulf Co-operation Council?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer to the question which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asks regarding the Gulf Co-operation Council. Nor, as I said, can I answer any question with regard to United States aid. The noble Lord is correct in saying that Jordan has long been a valued friend in the region and that that friendship was under some strain during the Gulf crisis. Jordan remains a force for moderation and stability in the region. We remain in close contact with Jordan and believe that it has an important role to play in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while I appreciate what the noble Lord said in his last answer, does he not

3
agree that from the start to the finish of the war the King of Jordan was acting under duress and that for nearly 40 years before the Gulf war he was a force for sense and sanity in the Middle East? Does he recall the statement of Mr. Baker on 1st March that the Americans were forgiving and forgetting Jordan's role in the war? Can we take it from the noble Lord's answers that the same goes for the British Government?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the Jordanian leadership was placed in a difficult position because of Jordan's dependence on supplies of Iraqi oil and because of the high proportion of Palestinians in Jordan and the high degree of popular support for Saddam Hussein. I repeat that Jordan has long been a valued friend in the region and we believe that it is a force for moderation and stability there.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how long does my noble friend assume that aid to Jordan will go on? Will it be for the foreseeable future and into the next century? Can we go on for ever aiding such countries?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no figures for the next century.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are the Government at least in reasonably close touch with the Jordanian ambassador at the Court of St. James, a situation which makes being an ambassador worthwhile? The Government normally adopt that posture; is it being maintained?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we remain in close contact with Jordan. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State visited Jordan in January and my honourable friend the Minister of State was there last month. Both of them held talks with King Hussein and contacts at that level will continue.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, although I understand what my noble friend said about the embarrassment of the Jordanian Government in the recent crisis, is it nevertheless sensible to assume that one can continue to give aid, however moderating an influence King Hussein is, if the Jordanian Government continue to break sanctions, assuming that we continue to apply them?
Lord Reay: My Lords, so far as I am aware, Jordan enforced sanctions to the best of her ability. She invited the sanctions committee to monitor her performance by putting observers on the border. There were some violations of the embargo by private businessmen, but we are satisfied that the authorities worked to prevent them.

Vehicle Theft Prevention
2.44 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to check vehicle theft in this country.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is to meet the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Association of British Insurers next week and motor manufacturing companies the following week in order to discuss ways of improving car security. We shall discuss further with the Department of Transport how best to secure agreement in Europe to a new European Community directive on vehicle security. Home Office publicity, which is aimed at the prevention of car crime, will continue at a high level. The car theft index, which was published last week, will be widely circulated.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. His round over those jumps dealing with the crime campaign last week was successful. However, is he aware that our record on car theft in this country is second only to that of Denmark, if we take Europe as a whole, and last year amounted to 494,000 car thefts? Is he further aware that there is an epidemic of this kind of prank by youngsters? Will he consider the point that the offence with which these offenders are charged—taking and driving away—is not adequate in the magistrates' courts, where the penalty is normally small, and that it should be graded as a theft, which it certainly is?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree that the number of thefts that take place of and from cars is alarming. My noble friend referred to 494,000 recorded offences in 1990. That was an increase of 26 per cent. over the previous year. Then there were 773,000 offences of theft from vehicles, which was an increase of 23 per cent. over the previous year. Those offences amounted to 25 per cent. of all recorded crime. A great deal can and should be done by owners themselves. Twenty-three per cent. of car owners admit leaving their car unlocked at some time. The last British crime survey showed that 10 per cent. of those who were interviewed and who had had their car stolen admitted that they had not locked it. It is one thing to penalise people for the crime that they have committed, but it is quite another to prevent them as far as possible from carrying out crimes against property.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has the golden opportunity, with the Criminal Justice Bill before the House, to consider an amendment which would define the offence as theft, which it is? Will he be so good as to consider that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly consider my noble friend's suggestion.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that alarm systems fitted in cars would be one deterrent against theft? However, does he further agree that many alarm systems fitted these days go off without any external interference whatsoever and that the point of having an alarm is impaired if it simply disturbs the neighbours? Could it not be made mandatory for alarm systems fitted in cars to work effectively?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is presumably the commercial objective of all manufacturers of car protection equipment to ensure that their items work effectively and do not go off at the wrong time. If the alarms go off at the wrong time and the manufacturers are in competition with others whose products work satisfactorily, they will not sell many pieces of equipment. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that it is one of the problems relating to all forms of protection from burglary or theft that instruments go off inadvertently. The car manufacturers are aware of that problem.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is not taking away someone's car in that way theft and is it riot already open to the Crown Prosecution Service to charge with theft rather than merely with unlawful taking away?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend may well be right.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his announcement about the conferences will be welcomed and that we hope that something constrictive will come from them? However, at street level—the level about which we are most concerned—is he aware that it is possible to go into almost any car accessory shop and buy a set of number plates for any number that you care to mention? The shop will simply make it up on the spot and you will walk out with a set of number plates to your order. Surely that could be tightened up for a start. Does the noble Earl agree that there must be something wrong when that can happen so easily?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is difficult to make a law which states that people are physically incapable of making up their own number plates. It is an offence when you display a wrong number plate. It would be difficult to make a law which stated that people may not make up their number plates when the components are available.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me for saying so, I am not talking about people who make up their own number plates. I am speaking of car accessory shops which make up sets of number plates. The number may be totally different from that on a car which the customer may or may not own. Any set of number plates can be supplied. I do not ask the Government to ensure that a person should be stopped from making up his own number plates. I merely say that it ought to be easy to require him to produce evidence that he needs the number plates and that the number is the one applicable to his vehicle. He should not be able to buy any set of number plates to transfer to other vehicles.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am now on the same line as the noble Lord. I misunderstood. I shall certainly look into the point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as has been suggested by other noble Lords, the problem of the charge of car theft is that one has to establish the
6
intention permanently to deprive the owner of it. Is it not for that reason—joy riders account for a large proportion of these offenders—that we have the other offence of taking and driving away?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, joy riding is a particularly bad name. It invites people to consider that it is fun, whereas in fact it is exceedingly dangerous. It is frequently carried out by young people and can result in injury and death. Often these cars are driven by people without licences.
I welcome the fact that the Association of British Insurers has produced a new anti-joy riding video which was launched during last week's Crime Prevention Week. It is probably not a wholly reliable figure, but in the United States a stolen car is 200 times more likely to be involved in an accident than is a car driven lawfully. Obviously it is a problem which needs to be addressed.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister must be aware of the concern expressed by police forces about the number of people killed by those who steal cars and drive them away. They are then involved in a police chase and often crash into some innocent person who is driving in the opposite direction. That is happening on an increasing scale. People are being killed and maimed. Will that be taken into consideration if the Government intend to look into the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and consider the offence with which people who do such things ought to be charged?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the greatest problems is to ensure that people do not get into the cars in order to use them for a joy ride. That comes back to the point that people can do much more to prevent that happening by taking their own security measures with their cars.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is obviously true that people can do more to prevent their cars being broken into. I urge yet again upon the Minister, for the fourth time now, that the only answer to this problem is that policemen should be more visible and that there should be more men on the beat. Does he agree that to spend £4.5 million on a somewhat glossy advertising campaign, the main purpose of which seems to be to persuade people that they are the victims of crimes for which they are primarily responsible, is no substitute for a uniform?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that I was not suggesting that spending money in that way is a substitute for a uniform. I am quite sure that he has not forgotten—because I reminded him of the fact last Friday—that there are now 15,600 more police officers than there were 12 years ago. There will be another 700 this year. There are also another 11,300 civilian staff. That has allowed for an extra 4,700 police officers to go on the beat or elsewhere. I cannot guarantee that every single one of them has gone on the beat but corporately and collectively they aim to work against crime.

Mr. Edward Robinson: Death in Prison
2.55 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on the death of Mr. Edward Robinson at HM Prison, Brixton.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the coroner's inquest found that Mr. Robinson killed himself in circumstances brought about by lack of care. I greatly regret that in this case mistakes were made which meant that a vulnerable man did not receive the care which he needed. The recommendations which were made by the coroner are being addressed by the Prison Service and other agencies as a matter of urgency.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Southwark coroner, Sir Montague Levine, described the circumstances of this case as involving a series of administrative blunders that at times belied credulity? Will the Minister indicate that when there is, as indeed there will be, a thorough inquiry into the circumstances, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has recently published a report on suicide in prisons, will be involved in it?
Can the Minister say why this man was in prison in the first place? Is he aware that he was known to be a paranoid psychotic? Is it not obvious that he should have been in a mental hospital? If he had been in a mental hospital he would probably be alive today. Can the Minister explain why he was not sent to a mental hospital?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fully accept that this is a distressing case. Sir Montague Levine finished the inquest only on 5th April. We have already implemented plans for improving communication between the court and the prison and between two prisons. Even before the coroner made his report we took steps to investigate the circumstances of this case and take action upon it.
The noble Lord asked about Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. I cannot tell him whether he will be immediately and personally involved in the inquiry but I am quite certain that he will be interested. As to why the gentleman concerned found himself in a prison and not in a mental hospital, the circumstances are these. He was arrested on 20th November for possession of an offensive weapon. He was remanded in Wormwood Scrubs and went next day to Clerkenwell magistrates. The doctor in Wormwood Scrubs did not find anything wrong with him. He was returned to court on 28th November where he was seen by the duty psychiatrist who, as the noble Lord rightly says, diagnosed paranoid psychosis. He could have been admitted to a mental institution under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, which is a civil power. However that needs a psychiatrist and a social worker to apply to a hospital to take the mentally disordered patient for assessment. There was no social worker available. Therefore the only thing that could be done was to apply Section 37 of the Mental Health
8
Act, which enables a court to send a person to a mental hospital for treatment within 28 days. That in fact was the course that was taken.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that after this man had been for the second time at court, when by then he had already been diagnosed as a paranoid psychotic and a considerable suicide risk, no notes or records about his mental state were given to prison medical officers at Brixton and his condition was not assessed by staff at the reception unit? Does he agree that that underlines the recommendation made in the Woolf report to the effect that reception procedures for prisoners who are suicide risks need looking into and indeed tightening up?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right about that. The medical papers from the court did not arrive with the individual at the prison. He only had his Section 37 warrant, which itself would have alerted people to the fact that there might have been a problem, but it would not have alerted them to the fact that he had a paranoid psychosis. Medical reports are confidential. We have now taken steps to ensure that medical reports go with the police for the person when he goes to prison. The man was placed in hospital in prison. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that it is not known whether he was seen by a doctor at the prison. The instructions are that he should be seen by a doctor within 24 hours. The doctor does not recall having seen him and there are no records about it. That matter is also being addressed, as are the matters concerning reception to which the noble Lord referred.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the case is representative of the amendments moved to the Criminal Justice Bill, and that those amendments are strongly shown to be necessary?
Earl Ferrers: I understand and know full well my noble friend's anxiety. However, I do not agree with her entirely. Before a person can go to a mental hospital under the present rules he has to be seen by a person in the mental hospital. If there were not a bed available, that might have been difficult to achieve even if the amendments had gone through. On the day in question, whether or not he had been seen by a doctor or a nurse, no bed was available.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris, would have reduced the number of days by which a Section 37 order could have come into effect from 28 days to seven. In the case cited they would also not have had effect because by the time the seven days were up the gentleman had committed suicide.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I return to the point raised by the noble Earl's noble friend Lady Faithfull. This is not the first example. We have discussed at least a dozen cases in the past two years of tragic people who have either killed themselves or tried to kill themselves while in custody because they have been in prison rather than in a mental hospital. Is it not clear that it is most desirable to consider the

9
matter again during the later stages of the Criminal Justice Bill to see whether we cannot improve the law and avoid such tragedies occurring?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is one which I share. My feeling is that it is probably the administrative arrangements which need to be addressed rather than the law. However, I shall certainly take that factor into account.

Municipal Airports: Future
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the future of municipal owned airports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government wish to see the local authority airports grow, but the public sector cannot afford all the resources which are necessary to achieve this. The answer is for local authorities to structure their development so that the private sector will take the major share in both the opportunities and the risks of expansion.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, are not local authority airports public companies with councillors on the boards as directors? Does that not make it more difficult to privatise the airports? If privatisation is carried out, will the noble Viscount give an undertaking that the local authorities involved and therefore the ratepayers will receive full market compensation and will not have the goods stolen from them without compensation as occurred with water privatisation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not in a position to give any guarantee. However, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said last week, he is looking at privatising local authority airports. No decisions have been taken. It would be foolish not to examine the options.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given that some municipal airports receive local authority subsidy in order to provide an essential service for local industry and commerce, especially in regions of the country where communications are poor, what assurances will the Minister give that once privatised such airports will not be asset stripped and closed down to the detriment of the local economy?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as long ago as the 1985 White Paper on airports policy, the Government stated that private ownership and management would have major advantages at least for the largest local authority airports. They also said that they would encourage them to introduce private capital. There has been no secret about what the Government have been trying to achieve since then.
For the current financial year, the Government will be making £87 million available in credit approvals for investment in local authority airports. That is on top
10
of profits that the airports reinvest. Over the past 10 years we have made £310 million available for investment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to answer the second part of my question? What assurances will he give that such airports will not be asset stripped and closed down should building land prices rise again?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can give no assurance to the noble Baroness. As I said, the matter is still speculation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is precisely what we fear.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot speculate on speculation.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, from the noble Viscount's reply, may we assume that there will not only be encouragement for local authority airports to take up private capital on a long-term basis but also the removal of present restrictions? That seems to be an important matter. Since the Government are considering options may we assume that they will not follow any doctrinaire policy on privatisation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, local authorities already have the power to dispose voluntarily of all or any of their interests in public airport companies and to sell their non-company airports and airfields. Disposal does not require the Secretary of State's consent. The private sector can be involved by the sale of a controlling interest in an airport company or by a variety of joint individual projects. The new terminal which is nearing completion at Birmingham is an excellent example of constructive co-operation between the public and private sectors.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the siting and running of airports in this country are of great international significance? How does he reconcile the ownership of those airports and the Government being responsible for a strategic plan in regard to our international transportation?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the civil aviation authorities advise that traffic at regional airports will continue to grow strongly irrespective of whether further South-East capacity is built. We welcome that because we wish to see regional airports handling all the traffic they can.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the latter part of the noble Viscount's reply to my previous question did not answer the point that I raised. I do not refer to disposal of assets or of the controlling interest. Local authority airports should have the freedom to go into the private capital market.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the options being considered.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if local authorities wish to deal with property or land in their area, they have to go through the processes of the CPO. Such valuation is decided by the district valuer.

11
Will the district valuer value those airports or will it be the duty of the Secretary of State, who will give them a knock-down price as has occurred with other public assets that have been sold off?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's comment to my right honourable friend.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Reay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Iraqi refugees.
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 this adjournment the Second Reading of the Foreign Corporations Bill, the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 will be taken.

Representation of the People Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.10 p.m.
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.]
Clause 28 [Power to release long-term and life prisoners]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 21, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would abolish the Home Secretary's current power to veto the release of prisoners on parole. The proposal was made by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, which examined the parole system and published its report in 1988. The argument is best set out in the report. It recommended:
"The Home Secretary's responsibility for releasing determinate sentence prisoners on licence should cease. The decision to release people on parole should be taken by the Parole Board alone".
12
The committee's report explained the reason for that recommendation as follows:
"The present arrangements are cumbersome and conduce to delay. They work in a way which ensures that the inmate is kept in the dark for the longest possible period. They also tend in practice to blur the responsibility for decisions: although the Home Secretary is, in theory, answerable for anything that goes wrong, the substantive consideration and risk assessment will in fact have been undertaken either by the LRC or by the Parole Board and the LRC. It seems to us much more satisfactory for responsibility to lie clearly and unambiguously with a single body".
The committee concluded that the only answer to the problem was for the Home Secretary to cease to be responsible for individual parole decisions.
The Government accepted most of the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee and have incorporated them into Part II of the Bill. However, in respect of this issue the White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, stated that the Government could not wholly accept this recommendation. It further stated:
"The Government believes that some offenders have been convicted of crimes which are so serious that the Home Secretary should keep the final responsibility for the decision whether or not to accept the recommendation from the Parole Board to release them on parole, as part of his wider responsibilities for maintaining the Queen's Peace … The Home Secretary's present intention is that he should continue to consider the release of those serving very long determinate sentences of 7 years or more. They will have committed very serious crimes and may be a serious risk to public safety".
Since then the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell has made it clear that the Home Secretary's involvement in decisions on the release of offenders serving discretionary life sentences contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are still considering what to do about that decision but must take action. In order to comply with the decision they must establish a judicial tribunal of some kind to make decisions on the release of such prisoners. That will eliminate the Home Secretary's involvement in release decisions for prisoners serving discretionary life sentences.
Prisoners serving discretionary life sentences have usually committed more serious offences and are potentially a greater risk to the public than those given determinate sentences. In my view it would be illogical to eliminate the Home Secretary's veto in respect of release decisions for discretionary life prisoners yet retain it for prisoners given fixed sentences of seven years or more. We on these Benches submit that the Government should accept the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee and end the Home Secretary's veto in respect of recommendations of parole for all prisoners serving determinate sentences.
If the Government are unwilling to consider ending the Home Secretary's veto in respect of parole decisions, we hope that they will explain to the Committee the logic of choosing a cut-off point of seven-year sentences as opposed to 10-year sentences. It is unlikely that when reviewing cases put forward the Home Secretary, with all his other responsibilities, can give deep personal consideration to all those concerning prisoners serving seven years or more. Can the Government tell the Committee, if not now before the next stage of the Bill, how many prisoners serving

13
seven years or more and 10 years or more are reviewed for pa role each year by the Home Secretary? I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. It would undermine to a considerable extent the responsibility of the Home Secretary for the maintenance of law and order. If when the Parole Board has made a recommendation he is to be deprived of his veto, he will be unable to discharge that responsibility.
Moreover the provision would eliminate the authority of Parliament in such issues. While the Home Secretary has a responsibility he is answerable to both Houses of Parliament. There may well be cases in which a released prisoner with a bad record has subsequently committed serious offences injuring innocent people. Either House of Parliament may wish to investigate such cases. If the amendment is carried the Home Secretary will have no option but to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "I am afraid that it is nothing to do with me. I have no power in the matter". That would be a most unsatisfactory outcome and I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Lord Hunt: I have some reservations about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In response to a question that I asked the noble Earl on Second Reading, I was delighted to hear him say in winding up that the Government propose to give effective powers to the Parole Board in regard to prisoners serving between four and seven years. However, I have reservations about the power to do so in respect of those serving longer sentences for more serious offences.
Several thousand prisoners are serving up to seven years, and that accords with the reality that the Parole Board's decisions are accepted by Ministers. They cannot see all the cases due to the large number of prisoners. However, the number of prisoners serving seven years or more is less. Therefore it is acceptable and possible for an appointed Minister to see those cases and to make the decisions. I believe that Parliament will expect the Home Secretary personally to scrutinise and give authority for the early release on parole of those serving the longer sentences of seven years or more.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for explaining his amendment. Its effect would be to give the Parole Board the final say in the decision to release on parole any prisoner serving a determinate sentence of four years or more. The amendment reflects the view of the Carlisle Committee, which we have carefully considered. There are arguments in favour of that view. It is right that in general Ministers should concentrate on policy rather than on individual casework. It is desirable to have a system which is simple and straightforward and avoids any unnecessarily complex decision-making process. In practice it is unusual for the Home Secretary to reject a recommendation for release by the Parole Board.
14
The noble Lord asked me to give the rejection figures relating to those serving seven years and those serving 10 years. I cannot give those figures but I shall inquire whether they are available. However, in 1989, 30 recommendations for parole were rejected by my right honourable friend and more than 13,000 prisoners received parole. The number not given parole against the advice of the Parole Board is therefore small.
The Home Secretary has a particular and important responsibility for public safety. It was referred to by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and is extremely important. The responsibility that is most evident in relation to those convicted of the most serious offences cannot be taken lightly. Those who have committed the worst offences must be taken seriously. It is right that the public should understand that the Home Secretary has a say in whether a person who has committed a very serious offence should be allowed back into the community.
That must be balanced against any arguments in favour of an administratively simpler system. I hope that the privileges in the Bill achieve that. For short-term prisoners—those who serve sentences of up to four years—release will be automatic at the half-way point. For long-term prisoners—those serving sentences of four years or more—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, where the sentence is between four and seven years, it is our intention under Clause 41 that the Home Secretary should delegate to the Parole Board the power to make the decision about release. For those serving sentences of seven years or longer, we believe it is right for the Secretary of State to make the final decision and for the Parole Board to retain its advisory role and to continue to advise my right honourable friend.
The provisions in the Bill already move a good way towards a delegated system which should minimise the involvement of the Secretary of State so far as it is acceptable to do so. Some may argue that we have not moved far enough and that we have been too cautious, but I do not believe that. When the new system is tried and has been tested, Parliament may consider it right for a greater degree of delegation to the Parole Board. In that case another order could be made under Clause 41 to extend the categories of case in which the decision was delegated.
I realise that some Members of the Committee think that we should go further. For the reasons I have given, I believe it is right for the Secretary of State to have the final power. If it transpires that that power could be given eventually to the Parole Board, then the mechanism exists in the Bill to allow that to be done.
Lord Richard: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he can explain why seven years is chosen as the cut-off point. What is the magic about a seven-year sentence as opposed to a nine or 10-year sentence? I do not know why that cut-off point was chosen nor, indeed, whether that is suitable. Perhaps the noble Earl can help the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: One must choose a cut-off point and that was the point considered to be reasonable. Those

15
serving sentences of four to seven years have committed fairly serious offences but are not in the same category as those serving sentences of over seven years.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: On a point of information, if an amendment such as that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not agreed to, will the Government not be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights in the face of the recent judgment in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell in 1990?
Earl Ferrers: The short answer is that the Government will not be in contravention. As we have explained, we are considering that judgment to see how best it can fit into our existing system.
The Earl of Longford: Does the noble Earl believe, in the situation which he envisages, that the Home Secretary will have more information before him which is not available to the Parole Board? On the face of it, he will not.
Earl Ferrers: It may be that he will not have more information, but the Home Secretary has responsibility for public safety. He is advised by the Parole Board but there are occasions—and, as I explained, very few occasions—when the Home Secretary's judgment may require that the decision to release should not be taken.
Lord Richard: I thank the noble Earl for his response. It was not very informative as to my question about why seven years was chosen as a cut-off point. I shall not test the opinion of the Committee on this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77A not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Duration and conditions of licences]:
[Amendment No. 77B not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Recall of long-term and life prisoners while on licence]:
[Amendment No. 77C not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir Lord Thomas of Gwydir moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Custody abroad
. After subsection (1A) of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1B) In subsection (1) above "relevant period" includes any period served in custody in connection solely with charges relating to the offence in any foreign jurisdiction awaiting extradition to this country where there is in existence at that time a treaty obligation for extradition between that country and the United Kingdom; and for the purpose of this subsection
16
"custody" means continuous detention by order of a court in an establishment provided for the purpose of restricting liberty."").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to remove an anomaly in one of our sentencing procedures. The anomaly is between the sentencing of prisoners detained on remand in this country and the sentencing here of prisoners detained abroad while awaiting extradition.
The case for the change proposed by this new clause can be put quite briefly. Before the Criminal Justice Act 1967 a judge imposing a custodial sentence on a prisoner who, prior to sentence, had been remanded in custody for the offence charged could take the period of custody into account and, usually with explanation, would reduce the appropriate sentence accordingly.
Section 67 of the 1967 Act made a change. Thereafter, the judge was not concerned with the computation of the remand time spent in custody or on bail and passed in full the appropriate sentence for the offence charged. Section 67 transferred the computation to the Home Office administration with the statutory duty to reduce the period of imprisonment following the court's sentence by the relevant time spent in custody on remand.
Therefore, the position was that the length of imprisonment but not the sentence was reduced. However, no similar provision was made for a prisoner who had been arrested abroad and who had spent time in custody awaiting extradition. That time in custody abroad could not be counted towards a sentence subsequently imposed by a court here. The Committee may think that in many cases that would be manifestly unfair and, indeed, some years later the Court of Appeal held that justice required that custody abroad in those circumstances should be reflected in the sentence imposed here.
Following that and other judicial precedents, judges today consider reducing a sentence in order to give credit for time spent in foreign custody. Of course, there is no statutory obligation for that credit to be given. Therefore, we now have two sentencing procedures which the Committee may think are quite anomalous and indeed undesirable.
Perhaps I may give a hypothetical example. Two men jointly commit a crime and both are arrested roughly at the same time. One is arrested in this country and the other is arrested abroad, in perhaps Canada or the United States, and is subject to an extradition order. Both are remanded in custody: one in England for a year; the one abroad also in custody for a year. When they come up to be sentenced, by precedent the judge is required to take into account the time spent in custody abroad; that is, one year. Therefore, he reduces the appropriate sentence by one year. However, with regard to the prisoner who was arrested and remanded in custody in Britain, he passes the appropriate sentence.
One therefore has the ridiculous situation where, for the same offence, with each man equally culpable, one man receives five years and the other four years. The public may find that difficult to understand. It is manifestly wrong that one man should have on his criminal record a sentence of five years and the other a sentence of four years.
I mention that example to indicate what the anomaly means. Amendment No. 78 was tabled on the initiative of that splendid organisation, Prisoners Abroad. An amendment was moved in the other place. It was not in precisely the same terms as this one. The Minister in the other place found certain objections. One was with regard to the difficulty of defining "custody abroad". A person could be in a prison cell or a house with restricted movement. For that reason the new clause contains the definition that custody means,
"continuous detention by order of a court in an establishment provided for the purpose of restricting liberty".
Another objection raised by the government spokes man in the other place was that custody abroad must be directly connected with the proceedings relating to the sentence. He said that it may be difficult to be certain about that. For that reason the new clause includes the words,
"any period served in custody in connection solely with charges relating to the offence"
Those two objections therefore have been met by Amendment No. 78. In the circumstances it is quite wrong that there should be two systems of sentence. It was regarded as being right in relation to a person on remand in this country that the Home Office administration should do the arithmetic and say by what amount the period of imprisonment should be reduced. In my submission the case for this matter to be determined administratively by the Home Office rather than by the trial judge is overwhelming. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: On behalf of these Benches I am happy to support Amendment No. 78. The position at the moment is bizarre. One has the anomaly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—a situation that can clearly arise in practice.
As I understand it the Court of Appeal said that justice requires that the amount of time spent in custody abroad should be reflected in the sentence imposed in this country. If it is not reflected in the sentence imposed in this country, then the royal prerogative is wheeled out—if that is not too inappropriate a phrase—and it is the royal prerogative that is used to remedy what prima facie is an injustice. If it were not an injustice then presumably the royal prerogative would not be thought applicable.
I believe that the then Home Secretary, now Leader of this House, wrote to Mr. Keith Best, the director of that excellent organisation, Prisoners Abroad, in March last year. He said,
"You are right about the position of the offender who has spent time in custody abroad awaiting extradition. Where it appears that time spent in custody abroad relating to the charge on which the prisoner was convicted has not been taken into account by the court in fixing the terms of the sentence, it is thought right to consider giving credit for that time. When justified, this is done by recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to grant an appropriate period of special remission of the prisoner's sentence".
It is absurd that in a situation where the courts and the Government are saying that the time spent abroad should be reflected in the sentence, the only way of remedying the injustice is to use the royal prerogative. Further inquiries to the Home Office regarding how
18
many times the royal prerogative has been exercised to grant special remission in those circumstances revealed that over the past five years 12 applications had been granted and no more.
When the matter was raised in the other place two points were taken by the Government. One was that custody could not be sufficiently defined so as to make it capable of administrative decision in this country. Secondly, the definition of the offence had to be related to the time spent in custody abroad. Both those points have now been taken care of in the clause before the Committee. The clause says,
"for the purpose of this subsection 'custody' means continuous detention by order of a court in an establishment provided for the purpose of restricting liberty".
In our submission it is wrong that somebody who has spent time in custody abroad within the meaning of the definition of that subsection should find himself in front of the courts in this country deprived of credit—if one may use that phrase—for the time he spent in custody abroad and thus relying upon the exercise of the royal prerogative. As we all know, that is uncertain, at least in its inception. It is an injustice which may be remedied by the Government accepting the clause.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Thomas from a different point of view; that is, the welfare of the families involved. When one man is in custody abroad for a time, his family and children do not see him during that period. If he then returns to this country and must serve a sentence—perhaps longer than his co-defendant's—further difficulties arise. Therefore, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Thomas, I support the amendment from a welfare point of view.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I too support the amendment. One further objection was taken by the Government in the other place regarding the difficulty of discovering what was the exact length of custody abroad. In all extradition cases there is a great deal of diplomatic communication between governments under the extradition Acts and treaties. I should not have thought it would be in any way difficult to have reciprocal arrangements whereby each government, where the extradition of one of their nationals is involved, always indicate the length of custody in which that person had been held.
Baroness Phillips: Before we go any further perhaps I can ask whether I am the only person in the Chamber who does not understand what we are discussing. It is not infrequently that I have to listen to legal people explaining things. However, I am attempting to envisage the situation given, and I invite Members of the Committee to interrupt if I have not understood correctly. Two men have committed the same crime. One man is arrested in this country and the other abroad. I am not clear how that could be if both committed the crime in this country. Has one perhaps been clever enough to skip off to another country and been caught there? If so, it seems to me that he deserves to receive the extra sentence. Perhaps

19
somebody could explain precisely what we are talking about. Why is one person awaiting extradition if both people committed the crime in this country?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In the interests of coherent parliamentary government I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment with sympathy. By "coherent" I mean that the facts as explained by my noble friend Lord Thomas indicate that when a similar amendment was presented in another place two clear reasons—which he accepted as having a base—were given for not accepting it. It may be that those two objections have now been answered. Unless my noble friend on the Front Bench can say that an answer has not been provided to the two reasons given in another place, I do not feel that we should play cat-and-mouse. As I see it, the strength of Parliament lies in having two Houses. That gives one time, during the various proceedings on a Bill, to arrive at as near a correct conclusion as possible by listening and meeting each other along lines which have been clearly established. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Thomas, it appears that the reasons for not accepting the amendment in another place have been answered. It would be sad if the coherence of that procedure had been properly followed but not accepted through approval of the amendment itself.
Earl Ferrers: We all have sympathy with the point of view which my noble friend has put forward in his amendment. Its purpose is perfectly clear. It is to put the prisoner who has spent time in custody abroad awaiting extradition in the same position as a prisoner who has spent time in custody on remand in this country. Therefore, from that point of view, it is eminently fair. Like the offender who has spent time on remand, the period which the offender is to spend in custody under sentence would be reduced automatically and administratively by a period equal to the time that has been spent in custody abroad during extradition proceedings, if my noble friend's amendment were accepted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was worried about the kind of cases where this situation can come about. I shall give one example concerning fraud where a number of different countries are concerned with the same case. It may be that people are taken into custody in one country and then extradited to another for sentencing. The positions of the respective offenders are not always comparable. Different arrangements are needed to take account of the different circumstances. Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas referred, makes it clear that remand time is relevant only when it is directly connected with any proceedings relating to the sentence which it affects.
That is an important principle and one that should also be reflected in the way in which foreign custody is treated. It is much more difficult to determine whether foreign custody is relevant in this way. It may, for example, have been intermittent or custody may have taken place in more than one jurisdiction. Some of it may have been in connection with charges faced by the offender in, or a sentence imposed by, the host
20
country. Therefore, it may be difficult to determine exactly how much of that custody related to the offence with which he was charged in this country.
This new clause attempts to overcome these objections, but it would be limited to cases where detention was continuous and not intermittent, and where remand time was related to the proceedings for this particular offence. It is also limited in that it extends only to those countries with which extradition is conducted on the basis of an extradition treaty. There are many offenders who would not benefit from it. Indeed, no prisoner who is extradited from a Commonwealth country would benefit because extradition arrangements with those countries are not based on treaties.
There is a great variety of factors which may need to be considered before a decision could properly be made to reduce the sentence which is to be served in this country. It requires an exercise of sentencing discretion which I suggest to the Committee is more appropriately exercised by a judge than by a civil servant in a prison or in the Home Office. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that judges should consider reducing the sentence in order to give credit for time which has been spent in foreign custody. That seems to be the most sensible and practical arrangement. The sentencing judge has all the facts of the case before him at the time of sentence and he can make the appropriate allowance for time which has been spent in custody abroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, there is the safety net of the royal prerogative of mercy being, as he graphically put it, "wheeled out" on these occasions in the odd case where proper allowance has not been made. We are not saying that that will be the usual way of dealing with the matter because usually the judge will reduce the sentence. If that does not happen, only then will the royal prerogative be used. That is why the numbers are small.
We have taken steps in the Bill to ensure that sentencers can continue to reduce a sentence to take account of time which has been spent in custody. The Committee may recall that a new government clause was inserted after Clause 23 which makes general provision for the mitigation of sentence. That includes a reduction in the sentence to take account of time served abroad awaiting extradition. That may go some way towards meeting my noble friend's concerns. I understand his concerns. I hope he will agree that the way in which it is proposed to deal with the matter is better than that proposed in the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Can the noble Earl say what the objection is to asking the foreign government to certify the time spent in custody? If that were done, all the problems raised by the noble Earl would be resolved. What is the objection to taking that course?
Earl Ferrers: I am not sure whether that would be the right thing for a foreign government to do. It is a matter which should be dealt with through the legal

21
processes. The principal objection would be that it is very difficult to fuse one form of jurisdiction with another on a legal basis as proposed by this amendment. We propose to deal with the matter by the judge understanding the circumstances of the case and making due allowance.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not understand why the absence of an extradition treaty with Commonwealth countries makes it impossible to behave as though there were one.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment refers to "awaiting extradition to this country" where there is a treaty obligation. With Commonwealth countries there ire no extradition treaties and therefore they would not he affected by this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Prisoners are sent here from the Commonwealth to be tried in cases of this kind, are they not?
Earl Ferrers: That may be so. I was trying to point out that my noble friend's amendment refers to extradition treaties and the obligations which this country has. Therefore, from the point of view of my noble friend's amendment, that would exclude people from Commonwealth countries. I shall certainly take my noble friend's concern on board.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington made a very sensible suggestion. He said that a foreign government should certify the number of days in which an alleged offender has been held in custody. The noble Earl explained the problems associated with that. Unless the foreign government does so certify, how can anyone in this county know the truth of the matter? The noble Earl said that the matter should be left to the judge, but how will he know how many days the offender spent in custody unless there is some certification process? I should be very grateful if the noble Earl can help me.
Earl Ferrers: The best thing I can do is to find out exactly what the process is by which one country informs another of the number of days an offender spends in custody. I see that there is a real problem. Judges have to know the amount of time that a person has spent in custody as opposed simply to having the prisoner say how long he has spent in custody in another country. We do not sentence on the basis of certificates from a foreign government. I shall look into the point made by noble Lords.
Lord Renton: Is it not the invariable practice for the police, before sentence is passed by the judge, to be called to give the facts known to them about the antecedents of the accused? That would invariably contain information about the time spent in custody, whether in this country or abroad. The defence have the right to cross-examine the officer if he has not given such evidence in examination-in-chief.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend, with his considerable experience of the law, is probably quite correct over that. It is important though that whoever determines how many days a person has spent in prison should do
22
so on the basis of the facts; and the courts should be aware that those facts are correct. I shall certainly look into the matter.
Baroness Phillips: I am still not clear about this. Are we talking about someone who has committed an offence in another country or about someone who has committed an offence in this country and then skipped over to Nice to have a holiday? I really do not quite understand what we are talking about.
Earl Ferrers: I do not blame the noble Baroness. I often find difficulties in that direction as well. She has a fairly vivid imagination and I think that both the examples which she gave would obtain. If a person has committed an offence in this country and then escapes, say, to France, one might get hold of the French police and say, "Look, here is this person who has done something terrible. We want him". The police then go and arrest that person and put him into custody. Then of course this particular aspect of the amendment would bite. Equally, a person may have committed an offence, such as a drug offence, in England. In the course of inquiries it may be found that one of those people involved in this drug offence, be he an Englishman or Frenchman, is sitting in Nice. Therefore, this person who has also been part of the crime for which the person in England is responsible may also require to be put into custody, and that is why again the person may be put into custody, in, say, France and be required to be extradited to this country.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I thank my noble friend the Minister for the answers that he gave to this amendment. However, I must confess—and I do so with all humility—that I am very disappointed indeed. I do not think that his answer was in any way relevant to the points which were made in support of this amendment. My noble friend referred to the question of custody, to the relevance of custody abroad and to the sentence passed. All that is covered in the amendment. What my noble friend has said is that he thinks the status quo should be maintained and that a judge should be the one obliged by precedents to reduce an appropriate sentence by the amount that he assesses to be the amount spent in custody abroad prior to extradition. That is the whole point which those who have spoken in favour of the amendment think is the anomaly.
Do my noble friend and his advisers think that a judge who is in the process of sentencing and is told that a defendant has been in custody abroad should take an immediate decision as to the length of that custody? Does my noble friend not think that the administrative side of the Home Office is better equipped to look into the matter to see exactly what the length of the custodial sentence abroad had been and to reach a decision? The judge can then give the appropriate sentence for the offence, and the amount spent in prison as a result of that sentence would be reduced, as it is reduced in a normal case by Home Office administration. That is all that this amendment means.

23
I am bitterly disappointed that my noble friend and those who advise him have not seen that there is a very strong case for this amendment. I do not intend to press it to a Division. However, I ask my noble friend and his advisers to look into this matter because there is clearly a case for a change. If he wishes the anomaly to remain it is going to bring into disrespect the procedure of sentencing.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend decides whether to withdraw his amendment, I am of course distressed that he should feel bitterly disappointed by anything that I have said. I realise that he feels very strongly about this. Indeed a number of noble Lords have spoken in favour of the amendment. I should certainly like to consider what my noble friend and other Members of the Committee have said. Obviously, we are all trying to get the right answer. Just because I happen to have taken a view slightly contrary to that of my noble friend, I would not wish him to think that we were not, as it were, running down the same lines. I shall certainly take into account all that he and the Committee have said.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. If he had said that in the course of his address to the Committee I should not have demonstrated such disappointment. I am most grateful to him for his undertaking and I hope that he and his advisers can look into the matter and consider what has been said in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraqi Refugees
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, Mrs. Chalker, on her recent visit to Turkey and Iran to assess the needs of Iraqi refugees. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement following my visit to Turkey and Iran to assess the needs of Iraqi refugees and what more Britain intends to do further to relieve their tragic suffering.
"Last Wednesday I reported to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the first days of immediate help we have provided to Iraqi refugees in both countries. On Thursday I left for Turkey and Iran with ODA and Diplomatic Wing officials and representatives of the British Red Cross, Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, all experts in the provision of humanitarian relief. Our objective was
24
to assess the current situation of refugees in the Turkey-Iraq and Iran-Iraq border areas, to stimulate improved communication and coordination of all aid donors on the ground and to plan our further relief to the refugees with the governments and aid agencies of all involved.
"The generosity of Her Majesty in allowing us to use an aircraft and crew of the Queen's Flight and the helpful attitude of both the Turkish and Iranian Governments and the Iranian Air Force enabled my team and me to see a number of camps and have detailed discussions with Ministers, officials and aid personnel in both countries. I was also able to meet senior American and German military personnel to gain a clearer picture of both their immediate and future aid plans.
"The plight of the Iraqi refugees is truly harrowing. Assistance is further advanced for those on the Turkish border than for those in Iran. The Turkish system has developed considerably over the past week but needs continuing supplies. I shall return to Turkey's work for the refugees in a moment; but first Iran, where the situation is changing hour by hour.
"For those in Iran, the rate of delivery of supplies from all sources must be at least doubled and donors must co-ordinate through the Iranian Red Crescent and with the Government of Iran, as well as with the UN and international aid agencies. There are now more than 1.2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, with many thousands more over the border seeking entry through the three crossing points.
"The Iranian authorities told me that they are allowing several thousand in a day as they establish more camps and places in them and provided the refugees will give up their arms at the border. Around a million people, mainly Kurds but also Turkomans, Assyrians and Arabs, have come to the northern border provinces of West Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran, another 200,000 plus have moved on to East Azerbaijan and there are more than 50,000 Shi'ites in Khuzestan in southern Iran across the border from Basra.
"Within the northern provinces, the response of the Iranian Red Crescent organisation and its provincial governors is growing daily with help from donors through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Iranian military. Britain was one of the first to supply directly to Orumieh in West Azerbaijan, 160 tonnes so far having been delivered plus 3 million water purifying tablets. The Iranian Red Crescent works through the provincial governors to secure supplies, distribute them and maintain order in the camps. Fifty-five camps have been established in Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran. The Iranian Red Crescent and local officials discussed their difficulties openly and welcomed our suggestions to help improve the organisation of supplies and health care.
"Our visit to two of the 22 camps near Orumieh, in the foothills of the mountains north of Piranshahr, confirmed that existing facilities are overwhelmed by numbers entering. The queues to cross the border at Tamarcheen are still three to

25
four kilometres long and there are little or no facilities along the road at all. On the road and in many camps conditions of shelter, health, food and water are horrendous and urgently need improve-me at. The health of women and children is particularly at risk because of unclean water, no sanitation, limited health care and irregular food distribution. In the mosque at one camp, the first point of arrival, whole families lie huddled together in row upon row with no facilities at all. They move on into tents, where they have little more space but where ground dampness makes the problem of extreme cold at night much worse. The Iranian authorities are setting up new camps continuously, but need more assistance to do so. The ICRC is helping, but the Iranian Red Crescent needs our help in West Azerbaijan.
"After discussion with Iranian Government officials, the Iranian Red Crescent, our own British Red Cross, the Tehran representative of the Save the Children Fund and local officials in Orumieh, I have set up under British Red Cross supervision the supply of tents, blankets and ground sheets through Orumieh to the West Azerbaijan camps. This supply operation starts tomorrow morning and will access the area by air either to Yusekova in Turkey or to Orumieh, with onward ground transport to the Iranian camps. To achieve this, we shall double the number of relief flights to Iran to four flights a week. The ground transport will be organised by the Red Cross and the Iranian Red Crescent with a resident British Red Cross official working with the British Embassy in Tehran to ensure co-ordination of supplies and personnel in this massive effort. We were advised by the Iranian Red Crescent that it needs many more trucks, and this is being examined urgently. We shall purchase food locally wherever possible, as we are already doing in Turkey through the local Red Crescent.
"To meet the health needs, I have agreed with the British Red Cross to co-ordinate with the Save the Children Fund to set up camp health centres in West Azerbaijan, where we know there is a very great need. We will start immediately with one centre for up to 150,000 refugees with satellite unit. This will be managed by the SCF and will run initially for a period of three months. I expect to extend this and to establish further centres through the British Red Cross.
"As a result of our visit I can also announce today an initial contribution of £2 million from the £20 million pledged by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for the ICRC's excellent programme to help refugees in Iran. In addition to the £12 million we have already committed to the European Community for its assistance to NGOs, and the European Community's contributions to the ICRC and UN appeals, I will be considering further contributions to the UN appeals. We need to know the UN agencies' plans in order to judge how best we can help. I hope this will be soon. There will be further help to British NGOs as plans firm up and are agreed. I shall be seeing the UN
26
Secretary General tomorrow and my right honourable friend the Member for Grantham will be meeting Prince Sadruddin Khan in Geneva.
"In Turkey we are continuing the airlift of relief supplies from this country and the airdrops to the refugees by RAF Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopters. Meanwhile, urgent action is being taken to establish protected refugee camps in northern Iraq near Zakhu and to persuade the refugees to come down from the mountains as quickly as possible. The United Nations involvement in taking over responsibility for these camps is crucial, as is our overall objective of getting the refugees to return to their homes in peace and security.
"As I said earlier, the plan is unfolding hour by hour. There are regular meetings with the British Red Cross and other agencies, with colleagues in government and links with our European partners, the US military and the international agencies. I am most grateful to Michael Whitlam of the British Red Cross and all the agencies and to our troops working in Turkey for the excellent work they are doing.
"The message I want to leave with the House this afternoon is that, following our visit, we are stepping up our relief operations to respond to the urgent needs in Iran through our own NGOs and the international agencies. We shall continue our operations on the Turkish border as we establish the protected refugee centres under Operation Haven inside Iraq."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. We on these Benches, as indeed must many people in this country, very much welcome news about what is going on in that tragic part of the world. The Statement was a lengthy one and we only had the opportunity to look at it for a few moments beforehand. Therefore, perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions.
I should say first that we are heartened by the fact that further information has been given about what is occurring on the Iraq-Iran border. I say that because, until the visit of the Minister for Overseas Development to the area, very little was known about what was happening to the large number of refugees arriving at the border. Although we were congratulating the Iranians upon their efforts in trying to deal with those refugees, the support coming from the international community seemed to be insufficient.
I note that the Minister said that the assistance to Iran must be doubled. However, perhaps he can give us some idea about the source of this extra assistance. The noble Earl gave many statistics as regards the number of refugees. But, as we all know, once people leave their homes and villages it is very difficult to monitor their movements and their numbers. Therefore, perhaps he can tell us what international agency is responsible for monitoring the actual

27
numbers involved and for locating these refugees. If such information is not known, it will be most difficult to help them.
We welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government are making an initial contribution of £2 million and they are considering making further contributions to the UN appeals. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us as soon as possible when those further contributions will be made to the United Nations to assist in the efforts which it is making.
As regards the refugee camps which are being set up on the Iran-Iraq border, does the Minister know—although I suppose it may be impossible to tell—what is their total capacity? According to his description, it would seem that there are still a huge number of refugees moving down from the mountains towards the camps. Can he say how many people those camps will be able to accommodate?
From the point of view of the safe havens on the Turkish-Iraqi border, clearly there must be a very great health risk from unclean water. If there is unclean water, food provision and so on is of little use. Can the Minister tell us who is in charge of providing clean water? I know that water purifying tablets have been sent to the area, but I understand that there is no way of setting up a supply of clean water. Can the noble Earl tell us what organisation is responsible for the provision of clean water to the camps? Further, can he tell us what is the total capacity of those camps and how many refugees are in them at present?
I am aware of the aid which has been pledged by Her Majesty's Government, but can the noble Earl tell us what quantity of aid has been pledged by the EC? That figure was not mentioned in the Statement. Further, from the point of view of supplies such as blankets, food and medical supplies which have been sent to the refugees in the camps, is there any way of knowing how much of this material has actually been received? We know how much is being sent, but the amount which is actually getting through to the refugees is another matter.
In conclusion, can the noble Earl tell us whether allied representatives have had the opportunity to discuss with their Iraqi counterparts the movement of Iraqi security police into the haven town of Zakhu? That is something about which we have read in our newspapers. Also, if he can, will the Minister say something about the long-term safety and security of the Iraqi refugees in southern Iraq on the Kuwaiti border?
We are grateful for the information that the Minister has given. The heartrending situation occurring in that part of the world has touched the hearts of everyone in this country, and so the greater the effort and contribution that Her Majesty's Government can make towards alleviating the plight of those refugees the more welcome that will be to the people of this country.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. We express our thanks to the Red Crescent, the Red Cross and the other voluntary
28
agencies whose work in delivering the supplies to the refugees is crucial. They deserve our support as well as our thanks. Like the noble Baroness, I note that the supplies required are double those already being delivered. That gives us some indication of the enormous problem facing all those trying to relieve the situation of the refugees in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere.
There are three short-term issues about which I should like further information from the Minister. First, one of the most worrying aspects of his right honourable friend's report was the description of the queues at the border three to four miles long, where no supplies, facilities or help are available. I should like to know what steps are being taken, first, to reduce the length of those queues, and, secondly, to ameliorate the conditions of those queueing. We had no hesitation in entering Iraqi territory on the Turkish border, and I should have thought that we should consider entering Iraqi territory on the Iranian border to relieve the situation of those people queueing in harsh conditions. I should also like to know what success we are having in getting people on the Turkish border down from the mountains, which is the whole purpose of the operation. We continue to say that that is what we are trying to do, and I am interested to know whether we are having any success.
Thirdly, I should like to know what steps are being taken to help the Shi'ites in the south, whose situation seems in some ways to be the most tragic of all. We have an obligation towards them. I have been shocked by the reports that the Kuwaitis and the Saudis are not participating in helping those people. Are those reports true? If so, what steps are Her Majesty's Government and the other members of the coalition taking to bring pressure to bear on those two countries for whom the whole operation was initiated in the first instance?
There are three longer-term matters upon which we should like some information. When will the United Nations take responsibility for the operation? The sooner responsibility for organising the whole operation is undertaken by the United Nations the better. Secondly, I hope that we have taken account of the fact that it is essential that in any peace treaty with Iraq and in any settlement of the Middle East problems, the rights of minorities in all countries are safeguarded. Unless that is done, the war that we have fought will be a war only half won.
Finally, what steps have Her Majesty's Government in mind for the longer-term future? To have more than 1 million refugees from Iraq settle in Iran without any idea of what will happen to them is to reproduce once more the tragedy of the Palestinians. We know that that is a precedent we do not wish to follow.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the welcome they gave to the Statement. I shall also ensure that the congratulations given to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are passed on. They are obviously doing sterling work in difficult circumstances.
The noble Baroness asked about numbers. In a situation as complicated, wide-ranging and rapidly changing as this, it is difficult to be precise about

29
numbers—the numbers we can get into the camps and the numbers of refugees who will go down to them. The sooner we can encourage people to return to their own homes in security, the less need for camps there will be. We see the camps as being temporary. To the best of our ability, we and our allies will ensure that there is enough space in the camps to accommodate the refugees. However, that is a short-term solution only. The noble Lord is right; the last thing we want is to have large numbers of refugees settled in an adjacent country. We have seen enough of that in the past.
I return to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said initially: this is a temporary operation while we encourage those who have left their homes to return in peace and security in the knowledge that they can live there quietly in accordance with normal laws. That is the long-term step about which the noble Lord asked.
With regard to our aid contributions, over 440 tonnes of equipment have so far been dispatched to Turkey; over 200 tonnes has been dropped by C.130s into Turkey and northern Iraq; aircraft are flying daily to Turkey with further supplies; and nine British helicopters have joined the airlift. There are at present 20 German helicopters on the Iran-Iraq border. There are also a large number of American troops and a large amount of equipment there. A massive relief effort is being made on the Iraq-Turkey and Iraq-Iran borders.
The noble Baroness rightly asked about the water supply. That is of course a key item. My right honourable friend the Minister of State took out water purification tablets to the Iranian side of the border. The noble Baroness asked about what is happening in northern Iraq. That is basically where the troops are at present. The troops are responsible for trying to clean up the water supply as quickly as possible and for encouraging the Kurds to leave the hilltops and move down to the warmer weather where it is easier to get supplies and clean water to them.
The noble Lord asked about the Shi'ites in the south. I repeat that we are concerned about the humanitarian needs of all the Iraqis. The UNHCR has made it clear that it will accept responsibility for the Iraqi refugees sheltering in areas at present occupied by the coalition forces. I confirm that we are pressing Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to take humanitarian measures in respect of this one-off difficult situation. Finally, the noble Baroness asked what the European Community is doing. It has pledged 150 mecus of aid.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister give us any information about the negotiations which have been reported to be taking place in Baghdad between the Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi government—they must be extremely important—with a view to getting people back into their houses? Finally, does he accept that in May and June there will be a need for troops who are acclimatised to the Iraqi summer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two important points. First, he is right to say
30
that the negotiations going on between the Americans and the Iraqis in the north and with the Kurds in Baghdad are extremely relevant to the situation. Unfortunately, I cannot give him an update on either of the discussions at the moment.
On the second point, the noble Lord again raises the difficulty that at the moment there is extremely severe weather; sometimes it is not even possible for the Chinooks to fly in, let alone the Hercules aircraft. Yet in a few short months the weather will be extremely hot, creating difficulty. I assure the noble Lord that we have the best possible troops available to look after people under those conditions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there are no words adequate to describe the appalling tragedy which is unfolding in Iraq on its borders with Turkey, Iran and, in the south, Kuwait. We are grateful to the Government for the efforts that they have made, although we all feel that not only our Government but all governments in the coalition and in the world should have foreseen the possibility of this tragedy some weeks earlier than they did. Are the Government satisfied that the immense efforts called for in order to begin to deal with the tragedy are properly co-ordinated? I ask that because this morning I received a report from the United Nations which referred to the appeal which that organisation made for 400 million dollars on 9th April, out of which 238.5 million dollars was for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. That was to cover the most urgent needs of the estimated 1.5 million refugees in Iran and Turkey over a period of only three months.
The United Nations report states:
"So far, about 26 million dollars has been pledged"—
out of the total which is required.
"On 11 April the Executive Delegate of the Secretary-General"—
that is Sadruddin Aga Khan—
"… appealed for 423 million dollars to cover new financial requirements for the emergency programme for refugees in Iran and Turkey".
The report mentions the governments of Greece, Japan, Korea and Romania having announced contributions for humanitarian relief for the displaced Iraqi population. There is no reference to the United Kingdom, the United States or France. It is difficult to understand what co-ordination is taking place. I welcome what the noble Earl said about the meeting that he and his right honourable friend are to have tomorrow. Given the immensity of the problem, is he able to tell the House at this stage that the co-ordination between responsible governments is adequate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in such a case it is extremely difficult to get matters right at day one. As the situation has unfolded the numbers have increased regularly; it has changed hour by hour. Therefore, with hindsight, the co-ordination was not as good as we would have liked. However, considering what has happened, the way in which it has happened and the conditions, the co-ordination has been remarkable. The co-ordination of the NGOs, the very helpful attitude of the Iranian Government recently towards my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Mrs.

31
Chalker, and the help that the Turkish Government have given means that everything is beginning to come together. The past few days have seen much closer co-ordination.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that, in order to make this effective, we need to know what the UN plans to do. That is the key, because we would like the UN to take over the operation. As the House knows, I have already reported that Mr. Suy, the UN representative and his team were in Iraq. He is now in Brussels, having travelled there via Paris where he briefed the UN Secretary General. The Sadruddin Aga Khan has appointed an executive delegate to the UN Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme for Iraq, Kuwait and the border areas. He will co-ordinate the relief effort. It is not I but my honourable friend, Mr. Hogg, the Member of Parliament for Grantham who will speak to him tomorrow. We shall make it plain to the UN that any money that we give must be used effectively and quickly. We do not wish to give money that just sits in a bank account in Geneva.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wish to repeat a question I asked previously, as did the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench. What pressure is being brought to bear by Her Majesty's Government and the American Government on the Saudi Arabian, Bahreini, and Jordanian Governments? These countries are geographically much nearer to the refugees. If they can so quickly supply armaments, I cannot understand why they cannot help with food, tents and clothing.
To my mind, we are striking our breasts and saying, "Mea culpa", as though it were the fault of the West. Surely those countries have an obligation towards their Moslem brothers. It is up to our Government to make that clear to them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are making it clear to all the neighbours of Iraq. I have already said this afternoon that we are raising the matter on a consistent and forceful basis with both the Saudi and Kuwaiti Governments.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that donations by individuals or voluntary organisations cannot begin to match the scale of the need and can at best merely complement what governments are doing. Nevertheless, it is desirable for all reasons that we should encourage people and organisations such as churches to give freely. Does the noble Earl agree that too often when an appeal is made, rightly or wrongly—often to hide selfishness—the benefits do not reach people?
Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that everything will be done to ensure that provision of services, whether by governments or voluntary organisations, will reach the people who want and need them? Will he ensure that our own representatives, including the armed forces personnel, will be used to make sure that aid reaches people, that they receive it freely and that they are not exploited by middle men?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, raises an important point. That is precisely why we have taken care to see that our aid is channelled through the UN and other agencies, not the Government of Iraq. We wish to see any aid we give go straight to the people who need it and that it is not held by middle men on the way.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I am a fully paid up member of the Lynda Chalker fan club, particularly on matters like this. I am extremely glad to hear what has been said about her visit, which has been useful. To a certain extent, it answers the question from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, suggesting that the Government were perhaps a little slow in the first place in sending resources. They wished to be sure that the aid was properly targeted. I support that.
Can the noble Earl assist us by telling us what the Americans are doing about the situation in Iran? It seems that on the face of it they are reluctant to involve themselves in what might be described as the Iranian front. I suppose that that stems from the political difficulties in the past. Are they playing their part on that front? After all, it is a much bigger problem than the one in Turkey.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the problem of the refugees in Iran is bigger numerically. This is a matter for the American Government. I do not have up-to-date figures on their dispositions. This is where a united international appeal and co-ordination are required. It is not a matter necessarily of Britain, America or France acting in every area but wherever the aid can best be used with the host country.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Sexual offenders]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 80:
Page 25, line 18, at end insert:
("(1A) A court shall not make a direction under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above unless it does so for the purpose of extending the period during which the offender is required to participate in treatment or therapy designed to reduce the likelihood of further sexual offences.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment was discussed earlier in the debate. It is therefore not moved.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 44 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Notices of transfer: procedure in lieu of committal]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 76, line 38, at end insert:
("(5A) Sub-paragraph (5) above shall not have the effect in a case involving a child witness as defined in section 44(6) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small probing amendment. It is an amendment together with all those up to and including Amendment No. 90 in my name On which I have been advised by the NSPCC and the Children's Legal Centre. Some of the principal advice has come from one or other of those bodies, and I do not propose to delay the Committee by identifying which at any particular time.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to clarify the position of a child witness in cases where an application has been made for a dismissal as provided for in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5. As the paragraph stands, it appears that a child witness could be required to give oral evidence under sub-paragraph (5) of the paragraph.
Although the provision is likely to be very little used, it seems contrary to the spirit of Part III of the Bill, and indeed of the Bill as a whole. Part III is very much about recognising the needs of vulnerable child witnesses and of meeting those needs, not only for the benefit of the child but for the benefit of a court in that a child who is properly handled is more likely to give evidence of value to the court. So it would seem unfortunate if the situation as described in Schedule 5 were to come about.
I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister can clarify whether I have interpreted this aright and, if not, what the situation is as he sees it. Perhaps he can say whether he considers that the amendment might be usefully accepted, not necessarily in its present form but achieving a similar purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Clause 44 and Schedule 5 set out a mechanism whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions may direct that committal proceedings can be bypassed. It gives him the unappealable and unilateral power to issue such a direction to the relevant magistrates' court, and he may choose the place where the trial shall be held.
The evidence against the accused person at that stage will consist either of an unsworn statement by the child or a video recording made to a police officer or, to use the words of the clause, to some other adult. The schedule sets out a procedure for an accused person to apply to have the case dismissed before arraignment by submitting to the Crown Court judge that there is not sufficient evidence on which the person should be committed. If the judge considers—these are the vital words—that the interest of justice requires any oral evidence to be given to assist him to make that decision, he can order any witness to attend for that purpose. If the person fails to attend, the judge may disregard the written or the video evidence which, in his view, is evidence which is so equivocal that he would find it impossible to decide at that stage whether the case ought to be dismissed or not.
This provision replaces the safeguard of committal proceedings, which can be a very important safeguard indeed for the citizen, in the normal process. Committal proceedings entitle an accused person to test the prosecution evidence, to establish its inadequacy, its irrelevance, its unreliability, its admissibility, or indeed often its dishonesty, thereby saving an enormous amount of expense and trauma to
34
the accused. It can also be used to clarify and pin down witnesses to facts and not to opinions or to inadmissible evidence.
This provision applies not only to the alleged victim but to any witness in the proceedings who is a child. Therefore, the amendment would effectively remove the only safeguard which is left for the accused person at that stage. Under the Bill—it is important to appreciate where we have put an accused person—the evidence against that person will not have been given on oath. It will not have been given before a magistrate, nor will it have been subject to cross-examination. There will have been no committal proceedings enabling him to dispute the evidence. A video recording will have been taken in his absence before someone who is not a judicial officer. That is the position. To deprive that person further by means of this amendment might lead to great injustice.
Perhaps I may give a simple example. Let us suppose that it appears on the statement of the child that there is a real doubt as to whether the child is referring to the person who has been charged. Let us suppose that the evidence is equivocal on that absolutely central point in the case. If this amendment were passed the judge would be unable to ask for the child to appear in order to clear up the problem and for him to make up his mind whether there is a proper prima facie case in which the child identifies the person who has been charged, or whether the child is or may be referring to somebody else. Such a situation is totally central to the whole matter.
The amendment would make the situation very dangerous indeed. I shall certainly resist it.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment. As Schedule 5 stands a child can be called in to give oral evidence to a judge in chambers which means that the child would have to give evidence twice. Although the provision is likely to be very little used, surely it is contrary to the spirit of Part III of the Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, very much concerns recognising the needs of vulnerable child witnesses.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has drawn attention to what is arguably a small but not insignificant loophole in the Bill. He rightly said that the whole thrust of the Pigot clause is to minimise the need for child witnesses to make courtroom appearances and so, on the face of it, there is a potential anomaly in Schedule 5.
Under the procedure in lieu of committal in Schedule 5 to the Bill, the judge must not order a child witness to be called to give oral evidence unless he is satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice. It is not easy to foresee the circumstances in which those interests would require it, given the prevailing attitude that child witnesses should be spared courtroom appearances and the existence of a video recording of the child's evidence which the judge can view. It is also relevant that, if the committal proceedings had taken place, by virtue of Section 103 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 the child could not have been required to give oral evidence at those proceedings.

35
I do not imagine that the situation would arise very often, but I agree that the possibility, remote though it may be, should not exist at all. I am at present examining ways in which the loophole identified by my noble friend might effectively be closed, with the intention of bringing forward an amendment at Report stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was afraid that the amendment would remove the only safeguard for the accused. Under the Bill the committal proceedings will be bypassed only where the Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify committal for trial if a violent or sexual offence has been committed against a child or has been witnessed by a child and the Director of Public Prosecutions is of the view that the case should go to the Crown Court and be proceeded with without delay. The safeguard, which is set out in detail in Schedule 5 of the Bill, is that the defence can apply to the Crown Court judge for the case to be dismissed if it believes that there is insufficient evidence.
Judge Pigot's group considered, and we agree, that, in cases which involve children, existing committal procedures are irredeemably flawed. They enable defendants to subject child witnesses to all of the burdens of delay, appearance in open court and face-to-face confrontation with the accused. In that respect they seek to frustrate the very objectives which the Bill seeks to achieve.
I am grateful to my noble friend for putting down the amendment. As I said, I am considering whether we can effectively close the loophole to which my noble friend has drawn attention.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging remarks and for the fact that he recognises that there is a loophole. I shall look forward to an amendment from him at a later stage of the Bill. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to
Clause 45 [Video recordings of testimony from child witnesses]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 29, line 35, at end insert:
("() In any proceeding under subsection (1)—

(a) the Crown may seek leave of the court for a child witness to be examined and cross-examined at a pre-trial hearing at which only—

(i) the judge;

(ii) lawyers for the parties; and

(iii) an appropriate adult to accompany the child as set out in the Code of Practice

shall be present in the same room as the child.

(b) The pre-trial hearing of the evidence of a child witness shall be video-recorded and the video-recording shall, with the leave of the court, be tendered in evidence before the jury.

(c) In deciding whether to ask the leave of the court to tender the evidence of a child witness in the form of a video-recording of a pre-trial hearing the Crown shall ascertain, and be guided by, the wishes and feelings of the child.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 82 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, which are consequential upon it.
Clause 45 of the Bill makes video recordings of the testimony of child witnesses admissible but only where the child is available for cross-examination at a trial if required. The Bill does not make provision for cross-examination to be carried out at a pre-trial hearing. The report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence, generally referred to as the Pigot Report, recommended that child witnesses:
"ought never to be required to appear in public as witnesses in the Crown Court".
It also suggested that the prosecution should be able as of right to apply for a child witness to be examined and cross-examined at a pre-trial out-of-court hearing which would be video recorded and later shown to the trial jury. The report also recommended that the prosecution should always be guided by the child's own wishes in deciding whether to apply for a child to give evidence in that way.
In those cases where further cross-examination of the child witness after the pre-trial hearing was deemed necessary the Pigot Committee envisaged such cross-examination taking place at a further out-of-court hearing. The Government have expressed concern that such an arrangement might lead to repeated recalls of child witnesses and to practical problems in ensuring that the same judge presided over all aspects of the trial.
The amendments seek to bring about an arrangement which would embody the spirit of the Pigot Committee's recommendations while taking into account the practical difficulties which might arise if the possibility of cross-examining child witnesses at trial were removed altogether. It makes provision for the hearing of evidence in chief and cross-examination to take place at a pre-trial hearing. At the same time it makes provision for cross-examination at trial in those cases where evidence comes to light after the pre-trial hearing which in the opinion of the court could have a significant bearing on the outcome of the case.
Amendment No. 82 would enable all children to be cross-examined immediately after giving evidence in chief, when events are generally clearer in their minds than at a later stage, and would prevent children being called to give evidence at a trial unnecessarily. It would also allow for those cases in which the interests of justice would be served by further cross-examination of the child during the trial.
At present the recall of child witnesses after cross-examination has taken place seems to be rare. Provision allowing for cross-examination to take place at an out-of-court hearing need not increase the number of such recalls provided they are allowed only for the purpose of examining new evidence which could potentially have significant effect on the outcome of the case.
My amendments would provide a framework within which judges would be enabled to exercise appropriate vigilance in ensuring that child witnesses are not recalled unnecessarily. Within that framework many children could be spared the ordeal of giving

37
evidence during a trial while the degree of flexibility necessary to provide practical means of ensuring a fair hearing in all cases would be retained.
In addition to the NSPCC and the children's legal body I have also received a letter of support from the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who makes some of the points that I have just mentioned. The Committee may be interested in the additional points that he made. It is pointed out that a child's recall of events has been shown to be much more full and accurate at an early stage after the crime and in sympathetic surroundings than at the trial some months later. Furthermore, the need to appear in open court, with its great disadvantages for children in terms of further psychological trauma and their inability to help the court and provide full evidence, can be reduced.
In summary, not only is it important, as the Pigot Committee made so clear, that the child should be spared the trauma and that the child's evidence is of value to justice in the widest sense, but, if there has to be a long delay, a very young child or one who has been brought up in sheltered surroundings may easily forget what has happened or invent things that might have happened but which did not happen. Not only are we seeking to protect the child in such cases but we are trying to ensure that justice is improved. That is an important factor that needs to be considered at all times. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This is an amendment which should be very seriously considered by my noble friend on the Front Bench. As we are in effect embarking upon a new and important development in criminal procedure we need to make quite sure that we get it right. The idea that the evidence of the child should be taken by video and not in the presence of the public at large is one that should be given very serious consideration. It is a principle of natural justice that all trials should be conducted publicly; but here we should acknowledge that there should be a justifiable exception to that general rule of natural justice.
For the most part, I feel sympathetic at the moment—naturally, I want to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say—to what is proposed, but with one exception. It is unthinkable to me that we should include paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 82, because that would in effect give the child a veto on whether his or her evidence should be called. I must remind the Committee that when, for example, evidence is taken abroad on commission or is given in a deposition or—more rarely in a criminal case—by affidavit, the person who has given such evidence, whatever the manner in which it is given, has no right to say, "I do not want my evidence used at the trial". It is unthinkable to me that we should allow a child of immature years, who may have valuable evidence on which the result of the trial can depend, in effect a veto.
The only other point that I wish to add is that I very much agree with Amendment No. 83. I do not think that we should leave out subsection (5) on page 30, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I do not think that the Government have that quite right. Certainly, looked at in its rather bare bones method of
38
expression, it does not read at all well. I shall quote from the beginning of the subsection to paragraph (b), which is not quite right:
"Where a video recording is admitted under this section…that witness shall not be examined in chief on any matter which, in the opinion of the court, has been dealt with in his recorded testimony".
If we are to have that provision, there should be a reference to the evidence being dealt with adequately because it may have been dealt with in a cursory manner.
Lord Mottistone: I think that my noble friend is talking about Amendment No. 84, although he has told me that he is talking about Amendment No. 83. I missed a great deal of what he said because I was trying to find my way about.
Lord Renton: I am so sorry. I thought that I was dealing with Amendment No. 83, but it is Amendment No. 84. I am much obliged. I seek the Committee's pardon.
It is quite right to leave out those lines, but the mistake to which I referred has, alas, been repeated in the alternative phraseology proposed in Amendment No. 84. The words,
"has already been dealt with in his recorded testimony",
do not go far enough. It is essential that the matter should be dealt with adequately, and the word "adequately" should therefore be inserted, both in Amendment No. 84 and in the words which it is proposed should be left out.
This is not an easy issue. We are breaking new ground. However, a constructive way of dealing with the matter has been proposed which we should consider carefully and sympathetically, subject to those two matters which I find difficult.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may briefly support my noble friend Lord Renton when he says that neither the Bill as it stands nor the proposed amendment has the matter quite right. We are breaking new ground, and further and earnest consideration should be given to the subject. To save time, I support without qualification everything that my noble friend Lord Renton said about the veto. However, I am also worried about another aspect of the amendment. It seems wrong that, in a jury trial, evidence at the trial should not be heard before the jury. As I understand it, the amendment would preclude that.
Lady Kinloss: I should like to speak to Amendment Nos. 82, 83 and 84. As I said on Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already said, the Pigot Report recommended that child witnesses
"ought never to be required to appear in public as witnesses in the Crown court"
and suggested that the prosecution should be able, as of right, to apply for the child witness to be examined and cross-examined at a pre-trial, out-of-court hearing which would be video-recorded and later shown to the trial jury. The amendments have been put down in recognition of how traumatic it is for a child to appear in open court and the number of cases

39
that collapse because the child witness has broken down. That is a huge waste of public money; not only that, but justice is not done.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to echo the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I emphasise that we are breaking new ground, and that it is essential to get this matter right. It is an extremely difficult area and I am sure that the Committee will not grudge any time spent now because the amendment is of great importance.
I am unable to support the amendment, although I sympathise wholly with the feelings behind it. I say that not as an old dinosaur of a lawyer, but as someone who has wrestled with the problem of how to achieve justice in child abuse cases or cases in which children give evidence within our adversarial system, both as an advocate and as a judge over a great many years; indeed, many years before Miss Esther Rantzen hit our television screens.
All judges have prejudices. My prejudice centred on the abuse of children. I found it extremely hard to forgive anyone whose sexual feelings were aroused by contact with children for taking on work which involved positions of trust in relation to children. Before sentencing persons who betrayed such trust, I would often adjourn a case until the next day in order to ensure that a calm and detached disposal was arrived at. In earlier years, as an advocate, I made it a special point to attend juvenile courts in many capacities, starting with, as some of the older Members of the Committee may remember, the juvenile court at Toynbee Hall, presided over by Basil Henriques, who was a very remarkable man. I learnt a great deal there. It is impossible to do justice in many of those cases because young children's evidence is so often simply not open to the normal tests of veracity or reliability. Yet child abuse quite rightly arouses such feelings of condemnation that jury trial is of paramount importance in those cases.
I have often asked a child witness—I hope in the most gentle way—whether he or she understands what it means to tell the truth, and whether he or she understands what telling a lie means. The child will solemnly say, "Yes". I then say to the child, "When you said what happened happened because of Mr. X, you were telling a lie, weren't you?". In many cases the child will answer, "Yes". In those circumstances, why is that so? The child may say that because it wants to agree with the person asking the question; it may be said through fear or lack of comprehension, or it may be said because it is true. It is incredibly difficult to know which of those reasons is the one giving rise to that very simple answer. That makes it impossible for a judge to allow the case to go any further on the basis that the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But no one in the court would feel my cross-examination showed that the child was a liar. It would merely mean that the child's evidence was not reliable according to our system.
I have always taken the view that every conceivable effort should be made in an abuse case to divert it from court and not deal with it in the adversarial atmosphere of a criminal trial. Of course where the
40
offence is a horrible one, the matter has to go to court. However, in many cases more harm is done by taking the case to court than trying to deal with it out of court. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has in the past had enormous success in taking that particular course. I wish that the more strident members of the child abuse lobby (if I may call them that) would put more effort into trying to find some way of not bringing such a matter to court than arousing a great deal of fuss about what happens in court.
It seems to me to be extraordinary that people say children do not fantasise. Anyone who has brought up children knows that they do fantasise; it is part of their fascination and absorption in fairy tales, nonsense poems and so on. Children not only fantasise, but sometimes lie. They often do so for a thousand different reasons which adults find difficult to understand. But lie they do. They often tell the truth. It is very difficult to find out which it is. There are the gravest difficulties in ensuring justice is achieved.
I must point out to some of those who have put their names to this amendment and to others that in the criminal courts it is the interests of justice not the interests of the child which are paramount. In considering the present amendment, I do not know whether the Committee appreciates the work which has to be done when a charge of child abuse is made. Maybe the defendant is a father, a teacher or whatever, and says to his legal representative that the allegation is simply not true. That is the end of it so far as he is concerned if he is innocent. Consequently, every channel has to be explored. First, is the evidence of abuse clear? Is it the evidence of other children? What is the background? Has somebody put them up to it? Is there any motive for doing so? Is there scientific, forensic evidence and, if so, does it require an expert to analyse it? Secondly, is it possible that somebody else has done it and, if so, who could it be? Could it be a babysitter, another member of the family, a visitor, or another member of staff in the school? Thirdly, is there a motive for putting the blame on the accused? For instance, one sometimes hears a rumour that the babysitter is the lover of the mother, that the headmaster is a homosexual, or that a brother of the child concerned has interfered with someone else's child. Has the child been coached? Is the child in fear of someone? All of those possibilities may arise. As an advocate, one may reach the trial with hard evidence or one may get it only by the most careful and persistent questioning of other witnesses in the case, particularly if they are children.
It is wholly unrealistic to think that justice can be done by any representative of an accused person to cross-examine a child witness weeks or months before the trial takes place. The advocate has a professional duty to put the whole of his case to the witness at the time of his cross-examination. He must not hold back things for later speech or cross-examination. It would be quite impossible months before a trial for someone appearing in these dire circumstances to put the whole case to a child witness. If I may say so, the Government was quite right to say in the other place that the amendment would mean repeated recalls of

41
the child witness as the trial went along. In addition, after a long cross-examination by an advocate in those circumstances the accused might plead guilty at the trial, in which case the whole cross-examination would have been pointless and the child put through trauma to no purpose. Supposing a number of children were giving evidence in the same case (as so often happens), how could the answer by one child then be put to another without that other child being recalled and the others being recalled in due course when certain further children gave evidence? I suggest that the idea of cross-examining all of them weeks or months before the trial is wholly impracticable. The amendment is well-meant, but I suggest it will simply result in possible injustice and probably add further trauma to the child in the end.
Referring to Amendment No. 84, what it amounts to is that there should be no cross-examination of the child in front of the jury except when new evidence is tendered. Suppose new information becomes available to the defence. It cannot be limited to just new evidence. It would be on the basis of new information which comes in which may not in itself be evidence at all. Indeed, information may come during the trial and not at earlier stage. I do not know what the words, "already been dealt with" mean. If the child says, "That was the person who abused me", has that "been dealt with"? Can one not suggest that it was somebody else? Is that a matter which has already been dealt with? The child may say, "I was not coached to give my evidence". If it appears during the trial that clearly the chili has been coached, as appeared in the Orkney case (all the things in that case being precisely the sorts of matters one feared might happen), is that a matter which has "already been dealt with"? Is one not able to suggest that the child was coached? Again, it does not seem to me to be a very practical situation, although it is a situation which should have all our sympathies.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I too wish that we could prevent such cases coming to court. I must tell the Committee that in all the 18 years that I was a children's officer and then a director of social services, only one case came to court. I personally always saw the alleged abuser, the child and the mother. I shall not go into the way in which I dealt with the matter. However, I would always hope that, if possible and practicable, we could keep such cases out of court. But that is not always possible.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that we were breaking new ground and so we are. Cases have multiplied—or have come to light. They were always going on. We simply did not know about them. When the Cleveland situation broke I had an enormous number of calls from people involved in previous cases of children who had been in care whom I had taken before the courts for juvenile delinquency. They were now women of 35 or 40. They rang up and said, "We never told you that our real problem was that we were
42
abused in our home". I asked, "Why did you not tell me?" They replied that it was not done in those days ever to talk of it. Such cases have been going on.
I shall not rehearse the arguments which were so clearly put by previous speakers supporting the amendments. Perhaps I may mention a few further points which may be quite distasteful to some members of the Bar. As has been stated, Amendment No. 82 makes provision for cross-examination at a pre-trial hearing in protected surroundings. Present at a pre-trial hearing would be the judge, counsel for the defence, counsel for the prosecution and of course the child. It is envisaged that the alleged abuser would be in an adjoining room behind double glass so that he could see the proceedings but the child could not see him. The alleged abuser could hear the proceedings by means of an auditory receiver by which he could communicate and hear his counsel for the defence.
I know that that is a most extraordinary recommendation to make and that it is unacceptable to many people. But in a different context the method is used in both health and education. A video would be made of the proceedings with the permission of the judge and presented to the court. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made the point that the jury must hear the evidence. The jury would see the video recording of the cross-examination. I know that some members of the Bar react with instant aversion to the new procedure supplied by this amendment. I understand their anxiety. Over many years they have been used to employing the adversarial system before the jury. That has been their stock in trade and they can envisage no other method.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, because he is so good at coming back at me. However, research has shown that so long as it is as near as possible to the event, young children do not lie. I have with me details of an extraordinary case. I shall not read it out to the Committee because it is four pages long. In the case of a child called Susie, the court ordered that a video deposition conducted 61 months later was not so detailed or realistic as an earlier interview. The nearer to the event, the more truth the child tells. Further away from the event, the child becomes confused and muddled. Therefore it is in the interests not only of the child but also of the accused, the alleged abuser, to ensure that as soon as possible the pre-trial hearing takes place. One then is much more likely to discover the truth.
It is only in the past few years that we have had so many child abuse cases before the courts. I repeat that new, strange cases demand a new court structure to deal with them. I should point out that some years ago the Home Office and the Bar reacted unfavourably to the idea of the television link method allowing the allegedly abused child to be in a separate room from the court. That is now common practice throughout the land. However, there was a great deal of adverse criticism before that method was tried.
Why therefore do we not try this method, perhaps in three areas? Many Members of the Committee spoke, worryingly perhaps, against the amendment. In the case of the television link, when there was adverse criticism, we tried it, experimented and finally

43
accepted it. Why do we not in this case have a trial in perhaps three areas? I am bound to point out that the amendment is based on the recommendations of Judge Pigot in the quite extraordinary report of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence. Judge Pigot and his committee, one of whom I must point out was a detective chief superintendent in the Metropolitan Police, and another a barrister, agreed with the recommendation. The judge had wide experience. He was a circuit judge from 1972 to 1990. He practised in Liverpool on the northern circuit until 1977. He was appointed as Common Serjeant in the City of London. He had had wide experience and we pay tribute to his wisdom and work.
If the Home Office and the Bar will not accept this amendment, perhaps I may suggest that, as with the television link process, the method of a pre-trial hearing should be tried experimentally. A conference was organised in Leeds University at the Department of Psychiatry. The big hall was full. The conference was attended by the West Yorkshire Police, social workers, teachers and lawyers. The recommendations of the Pigot committee were reported, discussed, debated and accepted 100 per cent. by all those people.
Furthermore, the principle of the Pigot recommendation is not new. Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 already provides that where a court appearance would endanger a child's life or health, he or she can be questioned before a magistrate provided that the defence is able to put questions and a written transcript of the interview can replace the child's live evidence at the trial. If the Minister finds himself quite unable to accept the amendment, perhaps he would think of looking at Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act and possibly widening them.
Perhaps I may gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. On 16th April—in a completely different context, I admit—the noble Lord chided the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for resisting a new idea. He said:
"For … years the noble and learned Lord was teaching the old culture of sentencing"—[official Report, 16/4/91; col. 1372.]
At col. 1386 he said:
"He is clearly stuck in the old … culture".
Are those who speak strongly for the amendment "stuck in the old culture"? We have new circumstances which must be met in a new way.
On the question of justice, naturally the children's organisations support the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said. Therefore it could be said that we are biased. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, we must agree with justice. It is in the interests of the child that an alleged abuser—in particular if the allegation involves the father—should be found not guilty and should receive justice if he has not committed the offence, as indeed should any other man. I am conscious of that situation as last year I had to deal with a man who was wrongly accused of having had sexual dealings with a foster child. The case never came to court. However, justice should be done to the child, to the alleged abuser and to the community.
44
On justice for the community, have any Members of the Committee ever taken a child into a court? One takes the child the day before the hearing and says, "The judge will sit here. The jury will sit here. You will sit here and you will just answer the questions that you are asked". The child says, "Yes". The next day one takes the child to court; he does not answer anything and the case has to be discharged. Is that justice for the community? Is that justice for the alleged abuser who has neither been found guilty nor not guilty? That seems a very serious situation.
I turn to the issue of justice for the child. The case which I cited involved a child of three. I shall not go into the horrible things that were done to her but at an early stage the child was able to say exactly what happened and was able to choose from a number of men the man who in fact committed the offence. Research at the Park Hospital in Oxford and from overseas, in particular in Colorado, has shown that the younger a child is, the clearer the truth when the account is given nearer the event. I therefore consider that with these provisions justice would be done. I support the amendment. If the Minister cannot accept it, I hope that he will at least reconsider the position, because new and terrible cases such as the one to which I have referred need to be dealt with by a different method.
Lord Ackner: I rise, first, to give the Committee an assurance that it is not the inevitable stimulation of the oft-repeated Hutchinson refrain that has at last brought me to my feet. As a matter of ordinary tactics, I had waited to hear the noble Lord speak first before I rose to disagree with him.
I start by at least showing this degree of harmony. I entirely accept that it is a very sensitive area of criminal law in which one must be particularly on the qui vive to ensure that justice is done. We are concerned with the provision of a fair trial. However, a fair trial, as is so often said to be the case, means fairness to the prosecution as well as to the defence. The fairness must be within the context of the adversarial system because there is currently no intention to change it. Therefore there is little to be gained by saying, "If only we had another system". We have not; and we must make the best use of the system that we have.
In order that the trial is as fair as it can be, one of the essentials is to ensure that the quality of the evidence to be given against the accused is at its best. In regard to children, one achieves that—as to an extent one does with adults—by two very clear principles. First, one tries to reduce the ordeal in which the evidence is given. The greater the ordeal, the greater the difficulty of any witness to give evidence which properly records what in fact happened.
As a Queen's Bench judge over a period of nine years, I have tried a number of children cases. One has seen the harrowing experience which the child inevitably has to undergo in describing in detail, and even more so under cross-examination, the abuse which is alleged. Quite obviously there are a number of occasions when the child gives evidence which is inaccurate. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to a child who, under his or someone else's

45
cross-examination, admits almost with the first answer, "It's a lie". That may be a truthful answer. It may have been in order to bring to an end an ordeal which the child finds quite intolerable. So much then for trying to reduce the ordeal.
The other feature of any reliable evidence is to get the evidence on record as soon as one possibly can. A policeman writes a contemporaneous note in order that he has a record of what happened; and indeed any layman who is involved in an accident is well advised—assuming that he is in a fit state to do so—himself to write a contemporaneous record of exactly what has happened. One must bear in mind that, if one leaves the child for months before he or she gives his or her evidence, one may well find what I expect the more technical people would refer to as protective amnesia: a forgetfulness which has been brought about by the sheer overwhelming desire to put out of the mind what he or she has found so horrible. The nearer one brings the account to the event, the more likely it is to be reliable. In an informal situation such as the pre-trial suggestion, the material will come out in a much more natural way and is therefore likely to be that degree more reliable.
Crass-examination is available. No one suggests that such material should not be challenged. But it is being challenged, on the suggestion made in the amendment, at the earliest possible practical stage; and that is when the challenge may be most effective. No one seeks to shut out the defence who subsequently find relevant material which should have been put to the child. I accept that those occasions will occur but they are likely to be rare. When they occur the child is obviously subjected to the trauma of having, on a second occasion, to re-live the events. But the r umber of occasions on which that will not occur surely justify the two-stage situation.
Tie noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that having gone through this process one may end up with a plea. The process may stimulate the pleas because the defence will have the majority of the material well in advance, subject to any new matters that may arise. That can be considered between solicitor, counsel and the client in deciding whether his account remains the same. I venture to suggest that the number of pleas that should have been made in the first case will increase significantly.
I do not wish the Committee to believe that I have merely surrendered to the irresistible persuasiveness of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I have a recent letter written on behalf of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges. The last paragraph states:
"May I raise one fresh matter. In our response to the proposals of the Pigot Committee on Children's Evidence, which we very much welcomed, we envisaged a scheme whereby the child's evidence—certainly that of a child victim—would be completed by cross-examination and reexamination in an informal setting before the actual trial began and would be video'd for the Jury.
This is at present not contemplated by the Bill and we urge further consideration to be given to this".
As I mentioned in this Chamber last week, the circuit judges carry out by far the bulk of criminal work in the Crown Courts and certainly in this category of case.
Reference was made to His Honour Judge Pigot. He was the Common Serjeant, the second senior judge
46
at the Old Bailey, until his illness. There is no doubt that he would have been the Recorder of London but for that illness. Not only was he a highly experienced practitioner in the criminal field but he was the most respected of circuit judges who has sat in the past 10 years. I do not believe that the dangers pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, were likely to have escaped him, let alone his committee. I firmly support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord concludes his interesting speech will he deal with a point that has not yet been raised in the debate? Consideration of it follows naturally from what he said about the way to obtain the best evidence. The noble and learned Lord will have noticed that Amendment No. 82 provides that the accused will not be among the people present. Until now it has been fundamental that the accused should always be present. How does the noble and learned Lord view that proposal? Does the absence of the accused mean that the evidence is more likely to be obtained truthfully, as I believe to be the case?
Lord Ackner: That is probably the case. One can envisage a situation in which the child, to use a lawyer's phrase, cannot come up to proof in the presence of a father, stepfather, uncle or whomever. However, the accused will not be debarred from hearing and seeing through the video what is going on. He will be able to communicate with his counsel and give his comments about the evidence as it emerges so as to ensure that the cross-examiner has any additional material that he requires arising out of the answers that are given.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Does the noble and learned Lord really consider it practical to cross-examine five or six children weeks before the trial in the absence of the other evidence which will be given in the court; for instance, that of the social workers and the police who took the statements? As an ex-advocate who perhaps did not often appear for the defence in such cases, does he really consider that to be a practical proposition?
Lord Ackner: Since my noble friend retired from active practice, increased impetus and pressure have been put upon the advocate and his instructing solicitors to prepare their cases a great deal earlier than used to be the case. The obligation to submit, for instance, a skeleton argument and to attend pre-trial reviews and conferences has added—and I sympathise—to the burdens placed on the busy practitioner. He must now work faster and obtain from his solicitor, whose burdens are also thus increased, the information that he would have waited for leisurely. That can be done but, as are most professions, we are resistant to learning new tricks. We must do so.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I wish to speak immediately after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because I strongly agree with what he said. I wish to tell a short story. I do not possess the expertise of Members of the Committee who are learned in the

47
law, nor that of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. However I have personal experience which confirms the wise words spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Long ago one of my children was sexually assaulted by a stranger. He was not a member of our household; he was totally unknown to us. At the time the child was aged six and there was one independent witness aged four. I wish to endorse what was said by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness. The further away one gets from the event the more muddled and confused the child becomes. The noble and learned Lord said that the quality of a child's evidence is at its best when given as soon as possible after the event.
Our experience was that the child was able to make a composed statement before a kindly police constable about two hours after the incident. The child was able to give a sufficiently accurate description of the offender and his car to enable the police to apprehend him. I should have welcomed the Pigot proposals at that time so that the child would have been able to give as clear an account to a trained examiner, following a code of practice, as it was possible to give to the police constable.
I shall say little more because fortunately the accurate deposition of the child was such that the man admitted his crime. Therefore the child did not have to appear before the court to which the offender was sent for sentence, which was an immense bonus for my family. That was the most distressing event which has ever occurred to me or to the child.
Anything which can be done in consideration of the child should be done and the Pigot proposals should be treated with the utmost seriousness by the Government. All the points which have been raised by a number of most respected Members of the Committee who are learned in the law—from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington—should be examined with great care. However, those are Committee points which should not be allowed to get in the way of this most important amendment.
Earl Russell: This is an intensely difficult matter. It is a clash between right and right. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington both made extremely powerful cases.
It is not only a clash between right and right but also between two cultures: those concerned with child welfare, with an immense amount of knowledge and experience behind them, and those concerned with the administration of justice. Where there is a culture clash in the drafting of legislation, we must accept that we shall never get it right because there is no such thing as a draft which is entirely right.
On the one hand, those concerned with child welfare are clearly right that children are more likely to tell the truth when not in the presence of the person being accused, in a reasonably friendly environment and as near to the time of the alleged incident as possible. In those ways, their case is powerful. On the other hand, the legal profession is concerned that all
48
the arguments should be heard in public, all the issues should be heard together and that there should be a right to challenge whatever is said against an accused person.
The resolution of this matter must be to choose the path which is most likely to get at the truth. That is the line pursued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If he is right that accepting this amendment would mean that we should be more likely to get at the truth, that would be the end of the matter. The question is: is it?
I shall not pursue the question of how far children can lie. On this, on the whole, my sympathies are with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, but that is a long argument and I do not believe that we need go into it now. I cannot see that the law in its official capacity can ever presume that any category of people cannot lie because once the law presumes that, then it is not conducting a trial. The first time I ever heard a case in court, which was a long time ago now, the judge was explaining to one of the accused, in effect, that policemen cannot lie. I do not believe that any judge would say that today.
There must be the possibility of challenge. For that reason, I am not entirely comfortable about the provision of cross-examination before trial. I understand entirely the arguments upon which that is put forward. The case put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is sound as far as it goes.
The question is: which is the most powerful case? I cannot make up my mind about that. A cross-examination before trial seems to me rather like conducting a Committee stage before the publication of a Bill. In some cases it may assist to get at the truth but I can think of a great many in which it may not.
The other point on which we seem to be stuck is the problem of recall. Here I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the drafter of the amendment whether they will consider a slightly wider drafting of the circumstances in which recall would be permitted. Should the emergence of new information be the only circumstance? As far as I can see, recalls are most likely to be needed when a new question arises and a new issue emerges, which often happens in the course of cross-examination. Because the court wishes to be satisfied on a new question, it needs to ask some more questions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about paragraph (c) of the amendment. I am glad that he made that point. I do not believe that the Bill has it quite right although it is very near to it; I do not believe that the amendment has it quite right although it is very near to it. I have a great respect for the adversarial system but on this issue I do not believe that we shall make progress by adversarial methods. Perhaps the Minister will agree that before Report stage there is a case for a quiet round-the-table discussion among some of the interested parties to this issue to see whether we can produce a slightly better form of words, with a slightly larger area of general agreement.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: For a member of the Bar prudence and self-preservation always mean that one sits down when a judge is about to speak. In this case I was delighted to sit down when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rose. When he sat down I found that I agreed with almost 80 per cent. of what he said. Therefore, not only was it a pleasure but it was a surprise.
I listened very carefully to everything which has been said in the debate. As a practising lawyer, at first blush I found the provisions of the amendment difficult to swallow. The proposition that there should be an examination and cross-examination way in advance of the trial and that that should be the evidence received at the trial is a difficult one for those of us who practise in the courts. We are inevitably faced with an adversarial system in which the witnesses from one side give evidence and are cross-examined there and then and the other side's witnesses also give evidence and are cross-examined there and then.
However, on reflection the amendment is rather more acceptable, even to a lawyer used to the adversarial system, than are the original terms of the Bill. I find it impressive in the amendment that the examination and cross-examination will take place at approximately the same time. In other words, it is not a case of the witness giving evidence, as in the framework set out in the Bill, which is video recorded and is shown; then perhaps months later the witness is taken into court and is cross-examined on the basis of what he or she said in the video recording months before. That is more unsatisfactory than a situation in which evidence is given, cross-examination takes place with the safeguards set out in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and both are recorded and shown to the jury at the trial. I find the system proposed in the amendment rather more impressive than the original terms of the Bill.
The difficulty is—and it is a genuine difficulty however one looks at the matter—that at some stage cross-examination must take place on the basis of information collated, collected and investigated by instructing solicitors on behalf of the accused. The danger of the amendment as it stands is that if the pre-trial hearing and cross-examination is contemporary with the offence—and many of the speeches this afternoon have made the point that there is a more accurate recollection the nearer it is to the time of the offence—it will be impossible at that stage to conduct a sensible cross-examination.
In the moving case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it would have been quite impossible for a solicitor acting for the accused, who by then had probably only been charged, to cross-examine in anything other than a most perfunctory and non-detailed way.
Lord Mottistone: Of course the hearing should take place as soon as possible after the event—the sooner the better from the child's point of view. However, does not the noble Lord agree that it will be difficult to get people together as quickly as we would like
50
within the terms of Amendment No. 82? It is more likely to be three or even four weeks before one can have the judge, both counsel and the hearing arranged than it is to be three days, as one would like. I should have thought that that—although hopefully it would be as soon as possible—must give time for all the bits to come together.
Lord Richard: It may. However, perhaps I may suggest an alternative which the noble Lord may find acceptable. It is clearly right that immediately after the incident a tape recording should be taken of the initial interview with a trained police officer and possibly a social worker present, and that that should be video recorded. In that way there will be an immediate account by the child of what is alleged to have happened.
The pre-trial hearing can take place at a convenient time between the taking of that video recording and the trial, at a time when the defence are in a position, because the investigation has taken place, to cross-examine and make sense of that cross-examination. In effect, the child would have to give two versions, one in the first video of the immediate complaint. In many police stations that is now done automatically. It is not done in the presence of judge or counsel; nobody cross-examines the child; it is merely the complainant telling his or her story in front of a camera. In many cases that becomes admissible evidence. I shall not go into the technicalities of how it becomes admissible but certainly in many cases in which I have been involved that video recording has been shown to the jury.
The pre-trial hearing referred to in the amendments could take place at a convenient time to be agreed with the court, the parties, the police and, indeed, the child or the child's guardian or parents. At that hearing, which is not in secret and which is protective, evidence can be given and cross-examination can take place. If the noble Lord sees that as a sensible way forward I have no problem in supporting the thrust of the amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps the noble Lord would give way. Does the noble Lord, Lord Richard, mean that the child will give evidence a second time? Is that the implication of what he is saying?
Lord Richard: Yes. I thought I had made that clear. What is important also is that the child will never give evidence in court. After all, I understand that that is what Pigot is designed to avoid: the intention is to spare the child from going into court facing people dressed in funny clothes using language that perhaps he or she does not understand, though I may say that many people do not understand it. The child then is not faced with an atmosphere and ambience which is totally foreign and alien. If we can at the same time protect the child and the rights of the accused as best possible, perhaps we are beginning to square the circle.
Finally, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Two principles clearly conflict. One is the right principle, the inevitable desire to protect the child from being put through the ordeal of what is normally

51
an adversarial trial. The other is the undoubted rights of an accused person, particularly in the kind of case where sentences and penalties may be high.
I believe that those principles can be reconciled in the way I suggested. If the noble Lord and those who appended their names to the amendment can accept that, I have no difficulty in supporting the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: In moving the amendment my noble friend put his finger upon an extremely important point. The speeches to the amendment indicate how concerned Members of the Committee are to find the correct solution to the problem. I agreed with my noble friend Lady Faithfull when she paid tribute to His Honour Judge Pigot that he produced an enormously helpful report. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is breaking new ground. It is important that we do the best we can to get the legislation right, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. He said that whenever he asked children a question he did so in gentle tones. I am sure he did. I have had the privilege of sitting opposite the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, for three years and I find his questioning formidable. I wish he would use his child's approach when he asks questions of me in the Chamber.
This is a matter upon which everyone is concerned to reach the right balance. Perhaps I may indicate the Government's view and how we came to the conclusions we have on what is a very vexed question regarding cross-examination. It is an issue which raises a genuine dilemma for all who are anxious to spare the child while preserving the rights of the accused.
There is general agreement that the defence must have the opportunity of testing the evidence. The question posed by the amendment is not whether that should be done but when and how it should take place. My noble friend favours out-of-court cross-examination before the trial begins. He emphasised that children do not remember for very long. Of course that is important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said virtually the same thing when he stated—I paraphrase—that the sooner one gets the matter dealt with the more likely one is to get the facts correct. I am sure that that is so, and it is a substantial reason for video recording the child's evidence immediately.
I understand and entirely share the concern that the child should not be caused any unnecessary suffering or delay. The possibility of delaying treatment or therapy is also often mentioned. I agree that traumatised children must be given appropriate treatment as soon as possible. At the moment that is sometimes delayed because the prosecution is concerned that the child's performance as a witness may be adversely affected by the treatment or that he may be tainted in some way.
I hope that the Committee agree that early video recording should overcome a good deal of that objection. In theory, moving the cross-examination to a preliminary hearing may help. Our view is that the theory tends to fall down in practice if there is any risk of a recall. The point is that, if one does not want
52
treatment until after cross-examination, then that treatment must be delayed until any possibility of cross-examination has passed. Recall for cross-examination can happen at any time during the trial proper, even under my noble friend's amendment.
We are all concerned with the need to avoid delays in court proceedings in child abuse cases. The Pigot clauses help a great deal by ruling out the necessity of committal proceedings and imposing a clear duty on the courts regarding avoidance of unnecessary delay. Those concerned with the operation of the criminal courts are fully aware of the problem. However, it should be remembered that some of the delay occurs before the case reaches the court. In the interests of justice, particularly in serious cases, time must be allowed for the case to be prepared properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that it was unrealistic to expect the defence to be in a position to do the necessary work months before the trial. Of course the noble Lord makes the point far better than I could, that with the best will in the world conducting cross-examination months before the trial is impractical. The danger is that we shall then end up with more recalls and therefore more rather than less stress for the child.
Perhaps I could say a little in regard to my noble friend's point on recalls. The Government's view is that the pre-trial cross-examination makes the child witness more vulnerable to recalls, adjournments and further delays. That is something which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was worried about. Recalls may be comparatively rare now, but that could well change with the advent of video evidence. It may be that that is why my noble friend tabled Amendment No. 84; namely, that a special device should be inserted to try to limit the recalls taking place. He said that they should take place only if the defence has produced fresh evidence which in the judgment of the court,
"may have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial".
Therein lies the problem. There can always be an element of doubt as to whether the evidence is or is not new or whether it might or might not have a significant bearing on the outcome of the trial.
We are talking here of the evidence of what is likely to be the principal prosecution witness. Attempts to discourage recalls of that witness would be difficult to defend. I believe that the judge would want to give the benefit of the doubt to the defence where the principal prosecution witness is involved. My noble friend Lord Renton criticised the expression "dealt with" contained in Clause 45, at page 30, line 22. He criticised it on the ground that the Bill should have said "dealt with adequately". That is exactly what "dealt with" means. I do not see how one can deal with a matter without dealing with it adequately.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I did not make the matter plain enough. It is possible for a matter to be said to be dealt with when it has been merely touched on in a rather cursory way. It is important that the matter should be dealt with adequately.
Earl Ferrers: I had in mind the strictures which my noble friend addressed to me last week. He congratulated the Government and said that he would always do so when they left out words instead of putting them in. That is what the parliamentary draftsman had in mind when he drafted the clause in the way that he did. My advice is that "dealt with" means "dealt with adequately".
My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that children would be too afraid to speak in court. Under the Government's proposals the child's evidence would in almost every case be given by a pre-recorded video. Further evidence would be given by a live video link from another room. In effect, the child should not have to appear in the courtroom itself.
We come to the important point that the amendment may well give rise to trials within trials in order to determine whether the evidence is truly new. The effect of that would be to delay the proceedings further. I do not think that that would be in the interests of the child witness, who would not only suffer from the delay but from the stress of appearing at a whole series of mini-trials. The defence might unfairly exploit the child's confusion at being questioned on several occasions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the circuit judges' letter of support for this amendment. It is perfectly true that the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges supported the idea of a pre-trial cross-examination system. With respect to the noble and learned Lord and to that distinguished body, that does not represent the view of all Her Majesty's judges. After publication of the Pigot Report we consulted very carefully. Of the six responses from what might be called judicial interests, only one was firmly and unequivocally in favour of the proposal. At least two presiding circuit judges warned that pre-trial cross-examination could end up by duplicating the trial.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether we could try three trial areas. The short answer is that we could not support the idea of an experimental pre-trial system in three areas of the country because we could not experiment with procedures where the liberty of a man or woman was at stake. We weighed these considerations very carefully indeed. The Government concluded that they could not pursue the idea of pre-trial cross-examination. After very careful consideration we decided that it was better not to have it. In these clauses we propose a regime which should spare the child examination-in-chief, allowing a video to serve instead.
It may well be that the existence of a video which is made admissible in proceedings will lead to a guilty plea and thereby obviate the need for further evidence from the child. If the defence wishes to test a prosecution case which rests mainly on the child's evidence, we see no alternative to cross-examination, albeit with the child out of the courtroom and giving evidence via a television link. That is the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken. I accept that this matter concerns the Committee, and doubtless will continue to do so, in order to get the position right. I appreciate that there are conflicting views on
54
the subject. But for the reasons that I have given it is better to try to pursue the course I have suggested and to see how we continue with it.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken who have given immense care to this problem. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in one respect only, in that there are two conflicting basic approaches—namely, care for the child and care for justice. However, I do not agree with him in his support of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I do not want to appear unfair, but the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, appeared to demonstrate that he had not appreciated the new possibilities of the video approach. Obviously his experience was in the past rather than the present. That view also applies to my noble friends who are also eminent counsel. They were talking in the past rather than in the future.
As my noble friend the Minister said, we are cutting fresh ground. He said that we are making some move on the Bill as it stands now and that we should try that out and return for further legislation if we need to improve it. There is a great deal to be said for that. However, it misses one terribly important point which my noble friend Lady Faithfull made so well. I also quoted the views of the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In order to get the best justice, one wants the newest evidence from the child. One has the immediate recording which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke about. That is equivalent to the recommendation made to us all by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; namely, that when we are involved in any kind of accident we should write down the details quickly before we have forgotten. I am not saying that as a joke. That goes some way towards getting the child's view.
My friends in the NSPCC would say that that is all very well, but over a longer period, particularly if one wishes to have other persons asking questions, one finds that something on the lines of this specially structured pre-trial service will bring out a better chance of accurate evidence from the child than if one relies purely on producing a first recording in court some months later. What we are after, and what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said we must not forget, is that we must have justice in the sense that the accused has presented against him the most accurate information that we can arrive at. The best solution is that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He said that we should use the immediate recording, but with the specially structured pre-trial procedure.
What I found disappointing in my noble friend's reply was his view that it would not be right to have, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull suggested, two or three experiments in regard to this process. Perhaps he would care to think again about that. I concede that it is all very well to say, "We will have an experiment in area X". However, it may then be discovered that there are no particularly relevant cases in area X but that there are some in area Z in another part of the country. Therefore I can see that there are difficulties. However, I should like my noble friend to give further thought to having an experiment on the lines of what

55
I call the Richard solution. We could then get some sort of a measure without having to wait for years before there is another Criminal Justice Bill.
My noble friend may say that experiments are not fair to the accused or are not fair to the conduct of good justice, or whatever was the phrase that he used. I recall that only recently certain magistrates' benches were invited to conduct trials with regard to traffic offences. I forget the detail and I have not had time to look it up. Trials are conducted in the magistrates' courts. I should be very surprised if the Crown Courts do not carry out experiments too. If they have not done so, perhaps there is a first time for everything. We are doing something new.
It was heartening that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with all his experience, was so strongly behind not only the Pigot Report, which again came from a very experienced judicial background, but also my amendment. That was to me most encouraging. I certainly do not think that my noble friend the Minister can come to a conclusion at this stage of the game. In the weeks before Report stage I shall certainly read with immense care all that has been said, including what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said, with a view to seeing whether I can come back with something which is an improvement on these amendments.
I hope, however, that my noble friend the Minister might direct his thoughts to a possible change—indeed he might come forward with an amendment rather on the lines that I suggest—and give very serious consideration somehow to arranging trials of what I call the Richard solution; that is, of having immediate evidence recorded under the care of an experienced practitioner or a policeman, with the subsequent pre-trial hearing on the lines suggested in my Amendment No. 72 and Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 as far as they are relevant. That would be very helpful. Perhaps my noble friend can give me some hope that he may think that my proposal is worth looking at.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies to that invitation, perhaps I may make so bold as to say that the crux of the matter is that examination-in-chief and cross-examination should not be separated by a long distance of time.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend has asked me whether I will consider the point that he made. Of course I shall. I shall consider most carefully all that has been said in the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested a round-table discussion before Report. I am happy to meet the wishes of the Committee if I can help over this in any way. We must try to get this as right as possible, and there are different views on it. If any noble Lord wishes to come to see me and discuss it with those of my officials who are far more experienced than I am in the technicalities of the issues, I should be delighted for that to happen. I cannot give a guarantee that as a result everything will be different. However, I undertake to consider
56
everything that has been said and everything that anyone cares to say to me about this. We want to get it right. It is breaking new ground.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone paraphrased by saying that we were taking a small step and leaving other measures until later. I would not wish him to underestimate what we are doing in this Bill. It is not just a tentative step forward; it is a set of very major reforms indeed. They sweep away barriers to children giving evidence; they ensure that video evidence can be admitted; they ban cross-examination in person by the accused; and they speed up the whole process by bypassing committal proceedings. These are enormous steps forward. If noble Lords wish to discuss this matter with me between now and Report stage I shall of course be happy to do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may try to make a constructive suggestion. We are concerned with a new area and with an area of new procedures which will have to be tried and which will be a matter of experiment. Would it be a solution provisionally, so to speak, to take the Bill as it stands but to enact an enabling provision for the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to produce procedural rules for this particular type of case? In other words, they could, as a matter of discretion, be operated, tried in various areas for a limited period of time and withdrawn. I put the suggestion forward as perhaps a way through which could, by experiment, produce the right answer. If the right answer be the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, so be it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: We must be careful about carrying out experiments when people are charged with criminal offences. There might be a problem in the Court of Appeal. Someone might say "There was an experiment in my case: I did not get proper justice".
Lord Richard: The noble Lord is quite right about blanket experiments. One should not experiment in cases where a person's life or liberty is involved. On the other hand, if the accused consented to this procedure then I see no reason at all why it should not be tried. Again, there is no reason at all why defendants who are going to be faced with this offence should not be given the choice of whether they wish to be tried in accordance with the new procedure or in accordance with the procedure in the Bill. I do not think that that is insuperable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was not suggesting that it should be proposed without assent. I took it rather shortly, but I accept that.
Earl Russell: What the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, proposes sounds remarkably like a Henry VIII clause, allowing the Minister to vary primary legislation by regulation. We ought to view that with some misgiving.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know quite whom one will satisfy or not in reply to those observations. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, for already using his childlike approach to questioning when he suggests that I should be very careful about

57
accepting such advice. Of course I shall be careful. I think it would be the best thing if we considered all the matters that have been mentioned this afternoon. The offer that I have given remains. If any noble Lord wishes to come to see me about a particular point—I suggest it is not the whole Committee, because that would make the object rather purposeless—I am there to help.
Lord Mottistone: I thank all those who have conducted what is the second debate on the subject. I thank my noble friend for considering the matter further. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 30, line 47, at end insert:
("()Where an application is made under—

(a) section 32(1) above; or

(b) section 42(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991

and leave is refused, the court shall record in writing the reasons for such an opinion.").
The noble Lord said: A similar amendment to the one now before the Committee was moved in another place. However, I understand that it was resisted by the Government in that place on the basis that judges do not have to record the reasons for refusing to allow the use of a live television link. My amendment therefore seeks to cover that point.
The insertion of this subsection would require courts to record in writing the reasons for the inadmissibility of all or part of a video recording or the reasons for refusing to give leave to use the live TV link. The effect and benefits of such a requirement would include the ability to use the body of information collected in that way to review and improve standards and practice and would help to ensure that the number being rejected remains small. It would also assist the Secretary of State to perform his proposed duty to carry out regular reviews and make recommendations for improvement in the use of video technology. The amendment would be of long-term benefit in the development and appropriate use of pre-recorded video technology, and the use of a live television link.
Although judges do not have to record the reasons for refusing to allow the use of a live television link—the argument put forward by the Government in another place—I understand that judges do have to record their opinions in other circumstances, such as refusal to give bail under the Bail Act 1976. That has the effect of focusing the court's mind. Given the radical and innovatory nature of Part III of the Bill, similar provision would be most useful. I have received support for the amendment from the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have also received other support for it, but I shall not trouble the Committee with such details. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Given the following facts, I wonder whether this amendment is really necessary. Before an application is made to the court on the trial or on any judicial proceeding,
58
argument must be heard from both sides. I believe that a shorthand note is taken of such an application in all courts. Under the wording of the amendment, the court is expected to give reasons which would then be recorded. Therefore, I wonder what it would add to the existing procedures.
Earl Ferrers: The Government have considered very carefully the suggestion that the courts should be required to give reasons, and in writing, for excluding a videotaped interview submitted under Clause 45. Our view is, as it was with the power to refuse an application for a live television link, that it is not necessary to require a formal record by statute and that such a requirement is not justified.
Our reasons are these. First, judges and magistrates already give reasons for their decisions when they believe that it would be helpful. They do not need to be told to do so. But, in the case of Clause 45, the Bill makes it clear that video evidence should be allowed unless it is contrary to the interests of justice. Such decisions will need to be taken looking at the case in the round. We do not require written explanations from the courts in the many other circumstances where they are required to consider granting leave for a particular facility. I do not believe that we could justify including an exceptional requirement for a formal record here.
The Government appreciate the need to keep new provisions under review. In the case of live television links, we have been monitoring carefully the impact of the new provisions and, although the review is not yet complete, we are aware that it has been rare—indeed, very rare—to date for the courts to refuse an application. Moreover, if it were refused the reasons do not have to be given. Therefore, I suggest it is reasonable that the same should apply in these circumstances.
I can assure my noble friend that we shall be monitoring equally closely the new provisions under Clause 45. However, I do not think it would be helpful to impose a rigid rule on the courts in the context of either Act.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that reply. As regards the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I believe the recordings that are made on television links are rather different from the ordinary records of court proceedings. In fact, they reveal much more and one can learn a great deal more from them as regards how best to use the television facility.
However, I note what my noble friend said. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. I shall, however, read carefully my noble friend's response and, if I feel that anything more needs to be done, I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 86:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Questions by a third party for child witnesses
—(1) At a pre-trial hearing and any subsequent hearing where the child witness—

(i) is very young,

(ii) has professionally diagnosed communication or learning difficulties, or

(iii) has been professionally assessed as having emotional and behavioural difficulties,

questions from the parties may, with the leave of the court, be relayed through such an appropriate third party as is laid down in the Code of Practice, and
(2) No person other than the third party shall be in the room with, or visible to, the child witness.").
The noble Lord said: As the heading to the proposed new clause states, this amendment deals with:
"Questions by a third party for child witnesses".
It leads into another amendment which is tabled in my name which seeks to achieve a code of practice. However, I do not wish to discuss that aspect at present.
A majority of the Advisory Group on Video Evidence recommended that the trial judge should be able to make special arrangements for the examination of very young or disturbed children at a pre-trial hearing where appropriate. It was proposed that the judge's discretion should extend where necessary to:
"allowing the relaying of questions from counsel through a paediatrician, child psychiatrist, social worker or person who enjoys the child's confidence. In these circumstances nobody except for the trusted party would be visible to the child, although everyone with an interest would be able to communicate, indirectly, through the interlocutor".
The amendment seeks to enact those recommendations and to extend them to children who have professionally diagnosed communication or learning difficulties which may make it particularly difficult for them to communicate effectively with unfamiliar adults. One example of the latter category of child witness would be children with certain forms of autism which make communication with strangers, or in front of numbers of people, difficult.
Professionals working with children who have learning or communication difficulties are increasingly expressing concern about the particular vulnerability of such children to abuse of all kinds. Adults who abuse children may particularly target those with communication difficulties precisely because of the problems that they often have in informing others about the abuse. Such children may have particular difficulties in giving evidence, but in many cases those difficulties could be overcome by the type of provision that this amendment seeks to allow.
Many children who are able to give a coherent account of events in the presence of a trusted adult are unable to do so in the presence of strangers. If enacted, the proposed new clause would enable the evidence of such children to be heard while enabling cross-examination to take place. Its provisions would be used in specific and exceptional circumstances.
Once again, I have received support for the amendment from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The college tells me that in other countries it has sometimes proved useful for questions to be put to a child by a third party. The third party would usually
60
be a professional with specific expertise in communicating with children. Sometimes this has helped the cause of justice.
Very disturbed or young children might be able to provide information to the court through this means. Very rarely do we envisage this method being deemed as appropriate by the courts. However, Amendment No. 86 allows this to happen in exceptional cases. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will allow me to say two or three words about the amendment. My experience is of course in the past. The trouble with many of the geriatrics in this place, among whom I must count myself, is that is inevitably so. I agree that I am progressively unqualified to participate in debates on current affairs. That criticism goes home.
I agree with subsection (1) (ii); but subparagraph (i) which refers to "is very young", and subparagraph (iii) which mentions behavioural difficulties, are extremely broad provisions and they make it difficult to make a decision. The accused person is faced not merely with a video taken in his absence as evidence against him, which is unique in the whole criminal process, he then has to cross-examine indirectly through a television link, and it is now suggested that he should cross-examine through a third party through a television link. The matter is becoming absurd except in exceptional circumstances. I presume that the question will be put to the absent witness through a television link, will be repeated by the third party, and then the answer will go to the third party and return through the television link. That form of cross-examination will be a little difficult.
Lord Mottistone: I believe the noble Lord had the linkage wrong. The question would be put to the third party (the special person) who would repeat it to the child and seek to obtain from the child the information required. There are various methods of doing that. It may not necessarily be a straight question. We are dealing with a child who is hampered in some way or who is very young.
When the child starts to answer, all the other parties to the investigation will see everything on the television screen. The information does not come to them through the special person. If the job is done properly, the parties will see the child responding. That is important. It means that those parties are obtaining the information. The third-party function is interpreting the question to the child. The child gives the information by demonstrating or by what he is trying to say. If the child is very young it may not be able to speak clearly. That is the picture.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment. It is an important one for children who are professionally diagnosed as having communication or learning difficulties. For example, as the noble Lord said, as in the case of autistic children who can give a coherent account of events in the presence of a trusted adult but

61
who have difficulty with anyone they do not know. If the child is unable to give evidence, that is not justice to the child or the defendant.
Lord Richard: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson said. It is difficult to cross-examine in the way that he described. It is done through interpreters when there are people who do not speak the language. One asks the question. It is interpreted to the witness. The witness replies in the foreign language and that is interpreted to the questioner. It is a long and painful process. As I understand the substance of the amendment—not the drafting—that is the procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has in mind. In other words, where a chi Id cannot express himself properly or has professionally diagnosed communication or learning difficulties, one would in effect have an interpreter between the cross-examiner and the child. To protect the child, the only person in the room is the professional interpreter. If I understand the amendment correctly, it would seem to be sensible rather than cataclysmic.
Baroness Faithfull: There is another example. A deaf c communicates with someone who can make signs to him. It is therefore essential to have a communicator.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, what is his definition of "very young" and "behavioural difficulties". How will they be assessed at the hearing? Is "very young" four and younger? Does "behavioural difficulties" mean that a child does not behave at home? The clause is vague and will create great difficulties. Until now, judges have always had discretion to decide whether a child is old enough to give evidence in court.
Lord Mottistone: We saw the provision as one that might be introduced where relevant. "Very young" is difficult to define. Some children are "younger than others" regardless of their chronological age. It is difficult to give a figure and to say that all children under three or four are "very young". Some four year-olds might justify the description and some two year-olds might not. I am exaggerating the point because I hope that all children who needed such help would receive it. I hope we shall find a way of doing so. "Behavioural difficulties" are defined in other legislation. I shall look at the points the noble Lord has mentioned if we go further with another amendment on similar lines.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining how the amendment would work. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there is no difficulty about using interpreters in our courts. He is right. Interpreters are already an established feature of our criminal procedure and no change in the law is needed to allow them to be used where there are severe communication difficulties. Specialists have also been used in court to assist with deaf and dumb children. The Government are unaware of any cases involving autistic children but if a child has communication difficulties, putting him or her in much the same
62
position as a deaf and dumb child, and special arrangements are requested to assist with the giving of evidence, we see no reason in principle why that request should be turned down.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that we are dealing here with something different and something more than interpretation. I believe cross-examination works best as a dialogue between two people. The point of it can be completely lost if that element of spontaneity is forfeited. There is also the risk that a third party, however well-intentioned, could ask questions in a way which is prejudicial to the conduct of the case, or he may misunderstand what he is asked to do. The child's interest would not be served in any way by that.
The Government sympathise with the sentiments behind the clause, but there are two points which must be borne in mind. First, a child may well become confused by the fact that someone whom he or she saw as a friend begins to ask difficult and probing questions. That could have counter-productive effects. Secondly, it is increasingly recognised that a good rapport with a child is vital to the successful conduct of a case. An advocate who does not achieve that runs the risk of presenting a bad case. I believe that advocates are increasingly paying attention to that factor.
We are making it much easier for children to give their evidence and where cross-examination does occur, that will be able to be carried out from outside the courtroom by live TV link, distanced from the advocate and with a companion with the child. I see no reason why application should not be made for this companion to be a professional if that would put the child more at ease.
There are assumptions behind the drafting of the clause on which I should also make one or two comments. The first is that it refers to pre-trial hearings. The Committee will realise from our discussion on an earlier amendment that we have difficulty in agreeing with the suggestion. Secondly, the clause seeks to establish a statutory function for a specialist interlocutor in what we intend to be a non-statutory code of practice. Those are significant problems for the proposed new clause. I should be grateful if my noble friend could consider that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I confess that, for some of the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I am not filled with enthusiasm for the amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I do not believe that there is an analogy with the interpreter. The latter is interpreting in a different language the precise terms of a question put by counsel. The third party will, almost by definition, not be doing that in normal circumstances. One could easily find oneself in a situation where leading questions were being put, or where the defence would argue before the Court of Appeal that the full question it wanted put to the child had not been put effectively and efficiently by the third party.
Perhaps we should bear in mind that at the end of some trials, given a charge of particular seriousness, a man may be at risk of being sent to prison for life.

63
That is not inconceivable. It is essential that one should have procedures which are defensible. I believe that the amendment goes too far.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lords, Lord Harris, and Lord Hutchinson, and another Member of the Committee questioned the expertise of the third party in the case of Amendment No. 86. The Committee will note that it relates to an appropriate third party as laid down in the code of practice. I hope that the code of practice would be on the lines of my Amendment No. 88. It would make sure that the third parties were specially trained people who knew what was required of them. They would not necessarily ask the wrong questions. They would be there to elicit the truth which would be the highlight for them.
I take the points that my noble friend the Minister made. There is room for improvement of the wording, particularly in view of our debate. I feel certain that I shall wish to come back to this at the next stage of the Bill. However, at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 86A:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Code of practice for children's evidence
The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice in connection with—

(a) evidence given by children; and

(b) video recordings of testimony from child witnesses; and

(c) cross-examination of child witnesses

and any other such matters as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice which would regulate the making and the use of pre-recorded video evidence in criminal proceedings. The code would provide authoritative guidance about how it could achieve good and consistently high standards in the making of videos to be used as evidence in the courtroom. It would also seek to establish a uniform approach to such evidence by the judiciary and other responsible agencies.
The code of practice should be based on principles which achieve two things: they must guarantee the rights of the accused and at the same time safeguard the welfare of the child. The drawing up of a code of practice regulating this area of work is particularly important since it would minimise the number of problem areas that are bound to arise in the process of implementing such a new and innovative piece of legislation.
There are a number of matters on which the code could give clear guidance: for example, location. It could give directions on the most appropriate venue and the kind of environment within which the recordings should be made. It could give guidance on timing, which we discussed upon a previous amendment. Some of the issues we discussed earlier are very much a matter of timing. The code could detail when a recording should be made. It could be at the point of disclosure, immediately before the court case or at some other time. The code could determine
64
who could or should be present during the recording of an interview and whether the child might be accompanied by a relative or friend. It could also deal with matters such as whether the child might be accompanied by anyone else. It could also deal with matters such as we discussed on the previous amendment.
Other amendments down are linked to this one, particularly Amendment No. 88. Again, it refers to matters which should be set out in the code of practice. The difference between Amendment No. 86A and Amendment No. 88 is that the latter relates to a voluntary code of conduct and the former to a code issued by the Secretary of State.
Everyone said this evening that we were moving into new territory or somewhat uncharted waters. If so, it is right that a code of practice regulating these matters should be statutory. It should be clear from the outset what we are trying to cover. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 88 now, as it is linked with Amendment No. 86A. I appreciate that the introduction to Amendment No. 88 is not so good as that of Amendment No. 86A. The Committee will notice that it presupposes that the Secretary of State will be concerned with the matter, because the last line reads:
"and any matter felt appropriate by the Secretary of State".
I apologise to the Committee if our amendment is not quite right. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that we should prefer to have a statutory code of practice. It is important. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said in relation to my previous amendment, we do not want hearsay evidence and mistakes in cross examination because the person helping the child is inexperienced. It is better to have a statutory code of practice than a non-statutory one, which I believe the Government favoured when the Bill was in another place. Then we can be sure that the legal side of the duties is properly tied up. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister will give a sympathetic hearing to a code of practice on the lines of either Amendment No. 86A or Amendment No. 88 or the two together.
Baroness Faithfull: I speak on behalf of those who have to deal with this work at grass roots: the police, social workers, teachers and the health organisations. The position is much clearer if these matters are specified, with a code of practice on the face of the Bill and not in regulations. I am afraid that, in reality, when dealing with such cases one looks at the Bill but very often one forgets or cannot find regulations. I support the amendment: the code of practice should be on the face of the Bill.
Lady Kinloss: When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say who will be responsible for the storage and disposal of video recorded interviews. Should that not be included in the code of practice?
Earl Ferrers: Judge Pigot's committee recommended that there should be a code of practice for the conduct of video-recorded interviews with child witnesses. It gave three reasons: first, in order to

65
protect the welfare of those witnesses; secondly, in order to protect the rights of the accused; thirdly, in order to give guidance about best practice. The need for such guidance is unquestionable.
Under our proposals, the rules of court would require a person who wishes to tender a video recording in evidence to give full details of all the various circumstances in which the recording was made. These should include: the date, the time and the location of any interview, as well as all the persons who were present with the child during the interview. We intend that those rules should be supported by a code of practice on how video recordings should be made.
I fully appreciate the importance which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend place on a code of practice. My noble friend asked whether I would give the idea a sympathetic hearing; I can do so. I assure the Committee that it is definitely our intention to publish a code of practice. It will be drawn up after wide consultation with all the various agencies, with the voluntary bodies and with experts. We have already started the spadework for it. We have engaged two specialist advisers who are eminent academics, who are qualified respectively in psychology and the law, to produce a first draft as a basis for the necessary consultation and discussions. We are determined that the draft should take account of and as far as possible reconcile both legal and child welfare considerations, as well as contain advice on functional, technical and equipment issues.
The scope of the code will need to be wide. It will no doubt cover all the issues which are identified in the second of the clauses which we are considering. However, we must take care not to confuse practice with law. For example, we must not pretend that the code can determine how the law of evidence is applied, which is clearly the province of the courts.
I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that special care should be taken by counsel with the cross-examination of children of tender years, but I also think it is a matter primarily for the legal profession. I know the profession is aware of the problem and is giving serious and careful consideration to all the implications for cross-examination techniques. That is one of the messages from research on the use of live television links.
I understand the intention behind these new clauses, and I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the importance of the code and the need to get it right, but I question whether it would be particularly helpful to prescribe the areas to be covered by the code of practice before the consultation process has even begun.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked who was responsible for the disposal or the storage of videos. I agree that this is an important and difficult area, and I can confirm that the code of practice will offer detailed advice on the storage and the destruction of tapes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Concerning the speech of the noble Earl, I was not quite clear what damage would be done if in fact the amendment were to be carried? One of the most fundamental arguments put
66
for the amendment was that put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. There will have to be a major training exercise for all those who will be concerned, be they social workers or police officers. They are going to have a highly sensitive job to do, and in the context of that situation it is infinitely preferable to have a statutory code.
Perhaps I may cite a particular problem area which has arisen in the past and which could arise in the future. A major criminal investigation took place outside London which led to a very fierce dispute between the police and social workers. As far as the police were concerned, the complaint was that some of the social workers had, for the most admirable of reasons, discussed with the children concerned the circumstances of what could be described as the criminal complaint, so that by the time the children had been seen by the police they were saying different things from what they otherwise would have done.
Given some of the past discussions we have had on this series of issues, it seems to me to be critically important that such matters be dealt with adequately in a code of conduct. Otherwise, there is a real risk that some cases will go badly wrong and that groups of people in different disciplines, who are motivated by nothing but the most admirable sentiments, will become extremely cross with one another.
We have already seen a number of cases in recent months and years where there have been great difficulties in this area. For that reason, if not for some of the others, it seems that the appropriate way of dealing with the matter would be by means of a statutory code. Given the fact that the noble Earl was good enough to say, about an hour ago, that he was prepared to listen to arguments on the previous matters we discussed, I hope that he will keep an open mind on this question. We are all trying to reach the same objective, and I believe there is a rather stronger argument for this statutory code than has been admitted by the noble Earl in the speech that he has delivered.
Earl Ferrers: Because I said that I would listen to what Members of the Committee said concerning a previous amendment, I did not mean to imply that I would therefore have a closed mind on all the subsequent amendments. Of course I shall consider what has been said. Surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not seem to have got the point, which is, if I may say so, unusual for him, but perhaps I misunderstood him.
If we accept either of these two amendments, all this says is that there shall be a code of practice. What is put in the code of practice is a matter for consideration, a matter for discussion, and something which will have to be investigated. Indeed, if the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, were accepted, all this says is that the issues are to be covered by a code of practice. It does not say what the code of practice itself should say. Therefore, if the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is really a concern as to what the content of the code of practice would be, that would not be covered by the amendment.

67
I have given an undertaking that it is our intention to provide a code of practice. I have also said that most of the points of my noble friend's amendment would be taken into account in that code of practice. That being so, I do not see that we advance the cause very much by saying that there shall be a code of practice when there is going to be one in any event. What really matters is what goes into the code of practice. That is what we are discussing with all the interested parties at present.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The only point I was making to the noble Earl, who normally grasps these points with considerable speed but unhappily does not appear to have done so on this occasion, is that there is a big difference, if he will forgive me for saying so, between a statutory code and a non-statutory code. We are now talking about a statutory code, and the last clause of the amendment gives the Secretary of State power to deal within a code of practice with such other matters as he considers appropriate.
It seems to me for the reasons I indicated—I do not want to go into the arguments again—that that is the best method of approach. I very much hope that on reflection the Government will agree.
Lord Richard: In view of the statement by the noble Earl that he is prepared to look at this matter and consider what has been said about it, and that a code of conduct is on the way in any case, and for all sorts of other attractive reasons as to why we should not pursue this matter further tonight, with your Lordships' permission I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: Perhaps this might be a convenient moment to break. I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee meet again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Foreign Corporations Bill [H.L.]
6.48 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short, straightforward Bill which seeks to deal with a problem in the international commercial field. The matters at issue are ones of private international law, which deals with ordinary legal relationships involving different legal systems. The problem is that these matters have, quite unnecessarily, been linked with public international law, which deals with relationships between states. In particular, this has affected the law relating to foreign corporations. The object of the Bill is to sever those two matters and to give primacy to commercial reality where the question at issue is one of commercial law.
There are indications that the courts are prepared to adopt a realistic attitude and to look not at whether a territory is a recognised state but at what actually
68
happens in the territory and at the law that is in fact applied there. As an example I might mention the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in a case involving the optical instrument manufacturers Carl Zeiss. The opposing view has been that a foreign corporation has no legal personality under our laws unless it is incorporated under the laws of a territory which the United Kingdom recognises as a state. If the Government do not recognise the state, it is argued, the law should not recognise the corporation. That is not a view that the Government share.
Whichever view is the better as a matter of policy the law cannot be said to be certain, and some doubts and problems have recently been raised on behalf of City interests and institutions. This Bill will dispel the aura of doubt that has appeared. The Bill will enable the legal capacity of foreign corporations incorporated under the laws of territories which the United Kingdom does not recognise as states to be accepted in this country. The question which the courts and others will have to consider is whether there is a corporation established by laws which are recognised by the courts of a settled legal system in the territory in question.
I stress that the Bill does not affect by one iota the Government's policy on the recognition of states, still less their policies in relation to particular cases. It is a Bill dealing with private international law, not with foreign relations. We shall continue to recognise states in accordance with common international doctrine; at the same time, like many other countries, we do not accord recognition to governments. We believe that where questions arise as to the law governing the incorporation of commercial bodies, they should be for the courts to answer, looking at any relevant evidence as to that law. They should not be treated as matters which are to be decided by reference to the Government's foreign policy. The Bill leaves commercial law to the courts and to businessmen and their legal advisers.
As I have said, this is a straightforward Bill. It provides a pointer for the courts and others to follow and enables them to work out the consequences of adopting this approach. Clause 1(1) applies where a question arises whether a corporation incorporated under the laws of a territory which is not a recognised state should be regarded as having legal personality in the United Kingdom. It provides that if the laws of that territory are applied by a settled court system there, that question, together with other material questions, is to be determined without regard to whether the territory is or is not a recognised state. That does not of course accord any sort of recognition to the non-state; all that the clause does is to ask the courts to approach questions relating to the status of corporations from non-states in the same way, whether or not the corporation comes from a recognised state.
It is a requirement of the Bill that there must be a settled court system in the non-state concerned. The corollary of that requirement is that there may be transitional situations in which the law cannot provide a simple solution. There may be a case, for example,

69
where part of a state is seeking to break away from the rest of the state; until it has clearly succeeded and, as a sign of its stability, has a settled court system, or has clearly failed, so that the structures of the original state are re-established, one cannot be sure what laws apply. The Bill does not attempt to solve that problem. Nor does it attempt to deal with the case of two factions fighting for power within a state.
Because subsection (1) uses the case of a recognised state as a point of reference, subsection (2) defines that phrase. It also deals with the territories of recognised federal states which would fall within subsection (1) if no other provision were made. However, our existing law on the recognition of companies incorporated under the laws of, say, California, is settled and needs no amendment, and it is unnecessary for subsection (1) to include federal states.
Subsection (2) also defines the material questions referred to in subsection (1) so as to include questions such as the capacity of a company to enter into a particular transaction and the powers of its directors, which are governed in whole or in part by the law of the territory of its incorporation. The Bill will enable our courts to answer such questions, as well as the basic question of the corporation's existence, in the same way as they would have done had the corporation come from a recognised state.
Subsection (3) validates acts, including acts of registration, which have been undertaken on the basis that a corporation from a non-state had legal personality under our law. To that extent the Bill has retrospective effect. We always take great care whenever the matter of retrospection arises to ensure that retrospectivity can be justified and goes no further than is needed. I believe that your Lordships can be so satisfied in this case. The retrospective element is directed, first, at those corporate bodies which may have entered into or incurred legal obligations and may subsequently seek to maintain that those obligations do not bind them because at the time they had no legal personality as corporations under the laws or the United Kingdom. Secondly, it will remove the risk that those who have dealt with such corporate bodies in apparent good faith may claim that such bodies had no legal personality in the eyes of our law and that therefore obligations entered into with them need not be honoured.
There is no significant difference between the laws of the various parts of the United Kingdom in this area, a id the Bill is to apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales.
Your Lordships may wish to know that we are not the only country in which the question of corporations from non-states has arisen. The Australians have also felt the need recently to enact legislation similar to this Bill.
The Bill clarifies the law on the status of foreign corporations and does so in such a way as to reflect commercial realities. The Bill does not affect our policy on the recognition of states. What it will do, I believe, is reassure and encourage companies in the commercial and financial world. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
7.7 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for explaining the purpose of this little Bill. As he said very clearly, there is a difficulty at the moment. The difficulty concerns the recognition of the legal personality of foreign corporations incorporated under the laws of territories which are not recognised as states by the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord is correct in saying that at present the law is flexible and doubtful. He said that, at the request of some of our corporations and institutions, he aims to see that there is certainty and that when they enter into a contract with a foreign state not recognised as such by us those corporations know which court has jurisdiction if anything goes wrong and that our courts would have jurisdiction. That is very acceptable. From these Benches I recognise that. We should all like to know, only so that it is on the record, what type of corporations and institutions have made representations to the Government in that respect.
My only complaint about the Bill is that as I see it, and until the noble and learned Lord convinces me otherwise, we are not giving that certainty which those corporations are seeking and which our own High Court, and especially our commercial court, which is a forum that is respected in the world for deciding commercial disputes, would want.
I turn immediately to the wording of the Bill. I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord of the points that I shall raise. One finds in Clause 1(1) (b) of the Bill that the pertinent point is that:
"it appears that the laws of the territory in question are at that time applied by a settled court system in that territory".
I looked for a definition of a settled court system. One can have a settled court system in the sense that the court system has been in existence for a great many years. However, particularly in the case of a state not recognised as such by this country, there is a risk that a settled court system which has been in existence for many years may be a most unacceptable, cruel and unjust court system. Where is the certainty that our commercial corporations will receive? Where is the certainty in regard to what the court would have to decide in the light of the Bill? Would the court have jurisdiction under the Bill? Would it have the duty to decide not just that it is a settled court system, but that it is a just, proper and honourable court system in regard to its laws relating to corporation and commercial matters generally?
As I see it at the moment from the wording of the Bill, the court and corporations will not know. Therefore, the question of certainty seems to me at first sight not to be dealt with. We have retained the flexibility and uncertainty which, at the outset of his remarks, the noble and learned Lord said was the one thing that he wanted to avoid.
My next point is almost the same one that I raised in regard to the rest of the wording in Clause 1(1) (b). The Bill states that the

71
"question and any other material question relating to the body shall be determined (and account shall be taken of those laws) as if that territory were a recognised State".
Where is the certainty about that? It is not that we shall be guided by what those laws say about a corporation, its formation, identity or nature. The Bill states—I use the words again—in a rather unclear and flexible manner that our courts will have to take account of those laws which exist in the unrecognised state, not that they will be bound by them. To what extent has the court to take that into account? What points must guide our courts in taking those matters into account?
It may be thought that these are Committee rather than Second Reading points, but it is always advisable to give the Government notice at Second Reading of what essential Committee points there may be. My questions go further than that. They hit at the purpose of the Bill. I hope that our Foreign Office will not have difficulty in regard to those matters; namely, that it will be thought that, if our courts recognise a foreign state which our Foreign Office does not, we are placing the Foreign Office in some difficulty. However, assuming that that does not cause our Foreign Office and Parliament any difficulty in the future, I see merit in the purpose of the Bill. But there is not merit in it if it does not cure the very malady that it is meant to cure, as was outlined by the noble and learned Lord.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for a number of points. I am grateful for the agreement that he has signalled from the Opposition Front Bench as to the purpose of the Bill. Perhaps I may also thank him for giving me notice, in his customary way, of the points that he mentioned.
The noble Lord started by asking me by whom was request made for some change in the law here. It is essentially a matter of general concern to a number of leading commercial firms of solicitors in the City who have the responsibility on behalf of their clients to conclude contracts with a wide range of corporations from different parts of the world. It was in that context that there had been some doubt—I do not want to overstate it—that such corporations were not properly to be recognised. The doubt therefore came from the legal world rather than from any corporation indicating that it was uncertain of its status.
The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Bill cannot wholly eliminate the uncertainty that exists at the moment. We are concerned with those territories which are not recognised as a state in themselves. We have taken the view that the way that the matter requires to be approached is to look at a territory and see whether it has a settled legal system which can and does apply laws. It seems to me—I do not see that there is any way out of this—that that will have to be a matter for the British court dealing with the matter to decide whether there is such a settled court system in that territory. The matter can be approached only on that basis.
However, once the court has determined that a territory has a settled court system applying laws, it then treats the law of that territory as though it was
72
dealing with a recognised state. As I know the noble Lord will appreciate, there is a well-developed body of private international law set out in a number of textbooks, often in the form of rules, that tells you which laws from the country where the corporation is incorporated are to be applied by a domestic court in the United Kingdom and which laws of the domestic court of the United Kingdom are to be applied, one in preference to the other. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, but that is what I understand lies at least in part behind the phrase,
"and account shall be taken of those laws".
Having determined that there is a corporation established in a territory with a settled court system, it does not follow that every law of that territory has to be applied in relation to the dispute before the British court. It takes into account those laws which it is bound to do by the well-established rules of private international law.
I hope that that explanation has been helpful to the noble Lord. If he is still not satisfied, we shall no doubt return to the matter in Committee. However, I am grateful to him for the general welcome that he gave to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991
Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991
Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991
7.17 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these regulations will raise the limits of income below which legal aid is available free, ensuring that the most vulnerable sections of our community continue to have that reassurance and protection. The regulations will also increase the level of financial authority delegated to the profession in respect of legal advice and assistance, with consequent benefits in terms of speed and efficiency for the profession, clients and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
The first two sets of regulations increase the income limits below which legal aid is available free of any contribution. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 and the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 raise the lower disposable income limit of civil legal aid from £2,645 to £2,860 a year and increase the weekly disposable income above which a person is required to pay a contribution for legal advice and assistance from £64

73
to £70. The latter regulations also prescribe the scale of contributions to be paid where weekly disposable income exceeds £70 but does not exceed £135.
The proposed changes represent an increase of around 8.1 per cent. which matches the uprating level of income-related social security benefits. The increases maintain consistency with the corresponding eligibility limits in England and Wales. The regulations will ensure that those members of the public who are most in need will continue automatically to qualify for free legal aid and for free advice and assistance. We do not at present propose to uprate the upper eligibility limits. The whole question of the provision of legal aid and the role of eligibility criteria is being addressed in the current review of legal aid. The first consultative paper is likely to be published shortly. We shall ensure that Scottish interests are fully consulted and that, in consideration of any proposals, full account is taken of Scottish circumstances. Pending the outcome, the Government consider it appropriate to leave the upper eligibility limits unchanged. It is nevertheless important to ensure that the income threshold for free legal aid is uprated, and this is what is proposed.
The third set of regulations are the Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1991. These regulations will substantially increase the financial authority delegated to solicitors to incur expenditure on legal advice and assistance without prior reference to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Their purpose is to increase the financial limit from £60 to £80. This will give solicitors more discretion to proceed with their important and urgent work without having to wait for the board's formal clearance and will be of benefit to solicitors, clients and the board. It will speed up their service to customers.
I believe the three sets of regulations I have just outlined represent worthwhile improvements and, taken together with our decision to increase legal aid fees by 9 per cent. from 1st April, clearly demonstrate our determination to continue to maintain an effective legal aid service in Scotland, and our willingness to respond to the changing needs of that service.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the three sets of regulations are welcomed by this side of the House, but I am not sure that they go far enough to meet the requirements of the population of Scotland who might require assistance in civil cases. I am bound to say that over the years complaints have been made about the way in which civil legal aid is administered in Scotland, in particular the levels at which people come into the system and the rate at which the civil practitioner is paid. At the moment, there is a real danger in Scotland that a second-class system of law is being introduced because people are not prepared to come into the legal aid system. Indeed, solicitors will send their legal aid clients away because they do not want to know them for two reasons: first, the remuneration is too low; secondly, the time taken to get thy; remuneration through is too long. That contrasts with criminal legal aid where there has been
74
an acceleration in payment and the criminal practitioner is now better off than the civil practitioner in terms of payment.
We welcome the extension of availability of legal aid with no contribution in so far as the regulations provide for it. However, one wonders whether the figure of £2,860 a year is rather unrealistic. If my arithmetic is correct (and it never is), that gives an income of £57 per week. We are now living in an age when the average national wage is in the region of £180 per week, and here we have £57 per week as the eligibility level for disposable income for free legal aid. If we look at the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1991, the starting point for disposable income range with maximum contribution is £70 per week. There appears to be a financial gap between the two levels of contribution.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might consider it appropriate to set up a committee of some kind to investigate the relationship between the rates and methods of payment under the civil and criminal legal aid systems. There is a great deal of unhappiness about the legal aid situation in Scotland. Solicitors are shying away from giving service to the public which the public demand. If people who require legal aid for civil cases in particular are not being given a proper service, then service within the legal system is diminished.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I respond briefly to the welcome that the noble Lord has given to at least part of what is contained in these regulations. I make the observation that I do not challenge his arithmetic in the calculation of dividing £2,645 by 52. I stress to him that what we are dealing with is not the totality of an income but a disposable income. From his own experience the noble Lord will appreciate that a considerable number of items require to be deducted before arriving at the disposable figure. Therefore, the true or gross income of any individual would be significantly higher than the figure which appears in the regulations.
The noble Lord asked whether I might consider setting up a committee to look at a number of matters touching on the operation of legal aid. My answer is that I will not because there is already a review being undertaken on a UK basis. Although clearly there are separate systems for the administration of legal aid and the rates at which eligibility may be determined, there is obviously a UK content to it. That review is already under way and a consultative document should be published shortly. The noble Lord may rest assured that Scottish interests will be fully consulted as part of that exercise.
The noble Lord indicated he was concerned that one of the difficulties for solicitors in Scotland was that from time to time they might be dissuaded from participation in the scheme because it took some time to get paid. That is undoubtedly a difficulty. But I am sure he will appreciate that sometimes the fault lies as much with the solicitors themselves as with those responsible for making payment as they take considerable time to get their accounts into a shape which can be submitted to the Legal Aid Board. In small measure, I hope he is reassured by what is

75
contained in the third set of regulations, because by increasing the financial limit under advice and assistance from £60 to £80, which sum can be incurred without prior reference to the Legal Aid Board, there should be greater simplicity and speed than would otherwise be the case in a number of small matters for which individuals and lay people go to solicitors to seek advice. With those observations, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has to say.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was unaware that a UK review was going on into legal aid. Can the noble and learned Lord say what the position is in relation to the question of brief fees as between Scotland and England?
As the Minister is well aware, at the moment in Scotland there is no such thing as a brief fee. As a result of that, an advocate in Scotland may spend a week or even a fortnight preparing for a case, but if the case does not go on the advocate is entitled to nothing, whereas in England a barrister instructed in a similar case (perhaps a major fraud) who spends a fortnight preparing for it will get a brief fee of considerable proportions. To that extent, there is a disparity between the levels of payment in Scotland and England. Perhaps the Minister can give your Lordships' House some information as to what approach is being taken to the question either of abolishing the brief fee in England, which having heard the debates over recent months would meet with considerable opposition in your Lordships' House, or introducing it in Scotland for counsel. This is not special pleading, but since the noble Lord has mentioned that there is a current UK review, I would have thought this matter must come within the terms of it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may just say briefly that this review looks at all aspects of the financial conditions of legal aid. I do not know whether it has or is proposing to look at that particular matter. I did indicate that, as part of the United Kingdom review, regard will be had to the particular Scottish considerations that apply.
I should say to the noble Lord that there are a number of Scots already working on it. I expect that, although it may take some time, it will be a very extensive and wide review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 to 8 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 46 [Further amendments of enactments relating to children's evidence]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 31, line 40, at end insert:
76
("() In subsection (1) of section 32 of the 1988 Act (evidence through television links) leave out the words "but evidence may not be so given without the leave of the court" and insert "whether evidence shall be so given shall be determined by the wishes of the child witness." ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 46 extends the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which allow child witnesses to give evidence by means of a video link. In the case of alleged sexual offences, the clause allows witnesses up to the age of 17 to give evidence in that way. Under current legislation, a child witness may give evidence by live video link instead of in open court only at the judge's discretion. Perhaps I may direct noble Lords' minds away from the technicalities of allowing witnesses up to the age of 17 to give evidence in that way. I refer to young children—very young in some cases. The current procedure means that it is impossible to let child witnesses know before the trial the manner in which they will be expected to give evidence at the trial.
Such uncertainty can only add to the already considerable stress experienced by many children waiting to give evidence in criminal trials involving allegations of violent or sexual offences. Many such children are extremely frightened at giving evidence in open court with the accused present. In some cases they are more likely to break down while giving evidence if called upon to give it in that way. Uncertainty about the manner in which evidence is to be given may deter some children from giving evidence; and indeed we have had examples quoted by other Members of the Committee during earlier amendments. It may also make parents reluctant to allow their children to give evidence.
If child witnesses could be assured from the outset that they would be able to give their evidence by television link, the fear and uncertainty experienced by many children could be considerably reduced, and that would lead to a reduction in the number of cases which collapse because of children's distress. My amendment seeks to alleviate the stress experienced by children waiting to give evidence at criminal trials by making provision to enable any child witness who wishes to do so to give evidence by live television link.
The Government have expressed the view that it is inappropriate for the witness to determine the method in which his or her evidence is given. In the case of child witnesses giving evidence at trials of alleged sexual or violent offences, I suggest that that consideration is outweighed by the importance of being able to assure children during the extremely stressful period while they are waiting to give evidence that they will not be expected to do so in the presence of the accused. The ability to provide such an assurance to a potential child witness would not impede the course of justice. It seems more likely to assist the course of justice as it would result in fewer cases collapsing because of the child's distress.
There are not many Members of the Committee in the Chamber. However, at Amendment No. 81 my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway were distressed by placing executive power in the hands of the child. That is what we seek to do now. I am sorry that they are not present to argue their case on that point. However, I repeat the argument which

77
was rather lost in some of the earlier amendments. We seek not only to ensure that children can give evidence under circumstances which are palatable to them but also to make sure that justice is done. If children are required to give evidence under circumstances in which they will not tell the truth or will not wish to say anything, then justice will not be done.
Although the position is unusual, and there may be a better way of describing what I seek to achieve which is not quite so blatant and enables the judge to consider that he has some say in the matter, I believe that such an amendment allows the child to have a hand in deciding whether the video link should be used. If my noble friend cannot agree to the amendment, perhaps between now and the next stage an amendment may be put forward which satisfies the obvious desires of the judge to be in charge of a case in the way in which the Bill provides but also provides that the child witness shall have a say. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. During the Children Bill, the Child Support Bill and indeed this Bill, I have tried to support the case that the child's wishes and standing should be recognised. Children are people. They should have the right to express their views. There is a strong case for making such provision. One is more likely to have satisfactory evidence if one responds to their wishes. There is great logic in the amendment. If the noble Earl cannot accept the wording, I hope that he will accept the spirit of the amendment. Children should have the opportunity to choose how they will give evidence. That is likely to achieve the best solution and the best evidence.
Baroness Faithfull: I agree with the spirit of the amendment. I worry that children of three, four or five would not understand if one asked them whether they wished to appear in open court or in comfortable surroundings. When one takes a child of three or four to a big courtroom he or she often will not give evidence and one is in difficulties.
The thought of giving evidence in front of their abuser fills boys and girls of seven, eight or nine years with such horror and apprehension that they often will not give evidence; or they say that they will give evidence but when they reach court they do not do so. I am behind the spirit of the amendment but the wording needs to be changed because the situation is different with children of different ages.
Lady Kinloss: I support the amendment because it is crucial in preventing child witnesses from giving evidence in open court. Under the present system a great deal of distress is caused to children and to their families by having to wait until the trial to find out the manner in which the child's evidence is to be given. If the child witnesses can be assured from the outset—that is, if they are old enough to understand—that they will be able to give their evidence by television link, the fear and uncertainty experienced by many children will be considerably reduced. That will lead to a reduction in the number of cases which collapse because of children's distress.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I speak tentatively and hesitantly about the amendment because as a non-lawyer, although not as an anti-lawyer, I am conscious that I am treading ignorantly in an area where so many Members of the Committee have great and expert knowledge. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that there are difficulties in the amendment as it affects small children. Surely the object of the exercise is to give the court the benefit of the child witness's evidence and to ensure that it is given freely, clearly and without fear. We must ensure that the evidence is given at its best, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded us. Surely justice is not served if the court is denied evidence because the witness is too frightened to testify. Children are easily frightened by adults. Lawyers too often forget that a court of law can be an awesome and intimidating place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, drew our attention to the current legislation under which a child witness can give evidence by a live video link instead of in open court only at the discretion of the judge. The inevitable effect of that is that one cannot let the child witness know before the trial the manner in which he or she will be expected to give evidence. That inhibits the giving of evidence.
There are ways around that difficulty. One way might be to legislate so that, if asked, the judge is required to give a ruling at the earliest possible stage in the conduct of a case. But there are also problems and perils in that approach. The present amendment—one might wish to see it a little more felicitously worded—avoids them and offers a simple alternative. If child witnesses could know from the beginning of a case that they would be able to give their evidence by a television link, their fear and uncertainty might be considerably reduced. They would therefore give their evidence better which would be an advantage to the court. Furthermore, more courts and more children would be enabled to receive and give such evidence. Fewer cases would collapse and there would be greater efficiency in the administration of the criminal law. Surely that is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
The Government have expressed the view that it is inappropriate for the witness to determine the method by which his or her evidence is given. I find that view difficult to understand. To what is it inappropriate? Is it unsuitable or not fitting in the pursuit of truth or the achievement of a just verdict? If so, I should be grateful to hear evidence of that surprising assertion. On what published research is the view based? What deep well of legal experience has been plumbed to bring up that particular dead fish? We are breaking new ground and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, we are dealing with matters unique in the criminal process.
If in this case the child witness were allowed to decide by which of two methods to give evidence, is it true that some fearful precedent would be set which would reverberate throughout the entire legal system? Would the authority and prerogative of the judge be fatally vitiated? Would the proceedings of the court run wildly out of control? Surely not! Would not any such putative risk be entirely outweighed by the

79
importance of being able to assure children during the extremely stressful period of waiting to give evidence that they will not necessarily and unless they choose be expected to do so in the presence of the accused?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I find it distasteful that I appear to be cast in the role of the dinosaur lawyer. I have spent a great deal of my legal career trying to find a solution and assist children to give evidence. I have taken a particular interest in that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked why the proposal is said to be inappropriate. It is that the substitution of the court's determination of an issue by the wishes of a prosecution witness is totally inappropriate.
Perhaps he will understand that the important issue in all our discussions is the question of justice and not that of the interests of the child. It is extraordinary to suggest in a statute that a prosecution witness is the person who determines the way in which evidence is given. That is an example of the child lobby going over the top. It is a perfectly simple matter which is in the hands of the judge. All such matters are in the hands of the representative of justice in the court; that is the judge. If one party wishes that one course should be taken, that party would make a submission to the judge.
As regards the administration of justice, the judge decides what is right in the circumstances and makes an impartial decision. If the child wishes to give evidence in one way or another the person who represents the child stands up and tells the judge that. The judge listens to the submission. He then listens to the submission of the other side because there is another side. Then the judge impartially makes a decision. I cannot understand why there is all this fuss. The matter is perfectly simple and straightforward and can be decided in the normal way.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, reads Hansard tomorrow he will understand that, if he had been present in the Chamber to hear my introductory speech, I answered many of his questions before he spoke.
Earl Ferrers: After that little rebuff I say only to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that the modest mantle of dinosaur lawyer suits him well, in particular when he is right. We have returned to the old issue of the rights of the child, the rights of the defendant and the balance to be struck between them. I sympathise a great deal with what my noble friend has said. I am sure he will agree that it is fundamental to the process of justice that the judge decides within the framework of the law and the rules of the court how the proceedings in his court should be conducted. He must ensure that they are conducted in a way which is fair to all parties to the proceedings and which ensures that justice will be done at the end of the day. That is a difficult responsibility. The amendment, in effect, delegates that decision from the judge to none other than the child witness or to his or her parents.
80
It is not right nor fair to place such a responsibility on a child witness and his or her parents or supporters. By definition a child witness is a person of tender years and probably with no previous experience of the legal process—how on earth can children have that? Such a person is hardly in a position to judge which method of giving evidence will be in his or her own best interests, still less which will be most likely to result in justice being done at the end of the day. However despicable the crime, we must never forget that the defendant also has a right to a fair trial. Important matters of court procedure cannot be left to be determined by the wishes of a person who in many cases will be the chief prosecution witness.
Nothing in the Bill prevents the child's representatives taking account of his views about the manner in which he gives evidence. However, neither the Bill nor the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which preceded it gives to the child the final decision.
I am sure that the courts will consider carefully and sympathetically the wishes of a child witness and will take them into account in deciding how the interests of justice will best be served in each case. I fully expect that in the vast majority of cases the child witness will be permitted to give evidence by live television link. That has been the experience so far.
I have every sympathy with the aim to eliminate the fear and stress associated with a court appearance by a child witness. I hope that, as a result of what I have said, Members of the Committee will see that this amendment goes too far.
I should mention also a technical but fairly serious objection, in that the amendment is unsuitable because it overlooks the provision for determining whether an adult witness who may be eligible to give evidence under Section 32 of the 1988 Act should be permitted to do so. That section of the Act says that in certain cases any person—adult or child—may give evidence through a live television link if the court gives leave. My noble friend's amendment replaces those words by reference to the wishes of a child only. Therefore, adults have disappeared from our considerations. For those reasons I do not advise Members of the Committee to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. I am sorry if I was rather abrupt with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and I hope that he will forgive me.
One point does not quite come through, although my noble friend touched upon it; that is, it would be helpful if a child could know before it came to court the circumstances in which it will be required to give evidence. There may be very good reasons—and I accept that—why the judge decides that the child must give evidence in court. In that case it would be helpful for the people looking after the child to introduce the child to the court and explain what is involved. A court is very awe inspiring, almost as frightening as I found your Lordships' House to be when I first arrived here.
On the other hand, if the child or the people looking after the child know that the evidence is to be given through a video, then the child can be prepared for

81
that. My noble friend Lady Faithfull mentioned that the child should be in comfortable surroundings. In my experience there are no comfortable surroundings in court buildings. Therefore, that will create a problem. However, at least the child can be prepared in the right sort of way.
As I said in my opening speech, the judge must take charge of the proceedings, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, impressed upon us. Moreover, the judge may well not make a decision on this until the trial date because he must hear from submissions on both sides. The child needs to be prepared for what will be, in any event, a great ordeal. Therefore, there is a problem. It is easy to say that we must be fair to everybody. However, I return to my point that it will not be possible to get the best evidence from the child unless that evidence is given in the right circumstances.
Having said that, I shall study what has been said. We may return with another amendment on Report. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Review of child witness procedures
—(1) The Secretary of State shall keep under review the provisions of this Part.
(2) In particular he shall keep under review the provisions relating to—

(a) evidence given by children;

(b) video-recordings of testimony from child witnesses;

(c) cross-examination of child witnesses;

and any other such matters as he considers appropriate.
(3) Where the Secretary of State has conducted a review he shall publish the results, together with any proposals he may have with respect to the matters reviewed.").
The noble Lord said: A similar amendment was moved in another place and was rejected on the basis that the Government did not wish to be held to a strict timetable imposed on the review duty. My amendment still covers a duty to review the new provisions but does not insist upon a timetable. Therefore, I hope that it meets the Government's objections.
A major recommendation made in the Pigot Report on the use of video recorded evidence was that, following the introduction of such a system, it should be subject to review at an early stage. The NSPCC and other child care organisations such as the National Children's Bureau and the Children's Legal Centre endorse that recommendation and believe for a number of reasons that this Bill should include a provision for gathering information.
First, as with the introduction of any new measure, there is a need for careful monitoring and assessment of best practice and development of the service. Such an accurate assessment is only possible if supported by detailed written information. Secondly, information gathered about the use of video recordings and the reasons why some videos are not admissible will
82
contribute to the development of appropriate procedures and best practice in the making and use of video recording techniques.
The requirement to publish the results of those reviews should encourage consultation with a wide section of the professionals working directly with children and their families. The views and opinions of children should also be sought. I hope that that is acceptable. It should help to ensure that children receive the most appropriate service at a most traumatic period in their lives. A view would help directly to improve practice, and, hence, the quality of the service.
There is a relative paucity of hard data about children in criminal proceedings. Perhaps I may take one example. Neither the Home Office nor the Lord Chancellor's Department collect statistics on case disposition times by offence. Therefore, we are in a position where it is almost impossible to obtain information about categories of offence in which victims are, by definition, children. Nor is information about disposition times obtainable from special data collection exercises related to child abuse. Effectively, we are in a situation in which there is no hard information about the numbers of child witnesses or the time delay for cases coming to court.
My amendment would provide some of that missing information. It seems dreadful to say this but the best information we have about child cases is what we read in rather purple terms in the press and not through statistics carefully kept by the government departments responsible.
Therefore, as the pressure of a timetable has been removed, I hope that my noble friend will accept an amendment similar to this for inclusion in the Bill because I believe that it is important that it is written on the face of the Bill rather than allowing it to come about by some other secondary means. It is important particularly because, as many Members of the Committee have said in relation to my earlier amendments, this is breaking fresh ground. When fresh ground is being broken it is particularly important to know what one is at and to gain all the advantage possible from such experiments as one is prepared to make. Therefore, I believe this review to be terribly valuable and thoroughly justified for inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: All Members of the Committee who have served in the armed forces in peace or war will be familiar with the concept of debriefing. After any reconnaissance, mission or patrol, participants were interviewed and questioned by the debriefing officer so that the maximum information could be extracted from the exercise. A good intelligence officer—and I was a very good intelligence officer—could learn more from the debriefings than from any other source of information. We were always taught that a debriefing must be informed, immediate and interrogatory. The same impulse informs this amendment, which it gives me great pleasure to support.
In any review of child witness procedures, as we are becoming used to saying, we are breaking new ground. Videos and television links are new; the whole

83
exploration of the sordid underworld of child abuse is new. It is therefore no more than common sense that we should be vigilant to check and assess our activities.
The amendment does no more than require the Secretary of State to monitor the new activities and publish the results. Surely it is necessary to do that. We have all heard stories of a child who, immediately after an alleged assault, tells a highly detailed and marvellously convincing story to the camera. A week or a month later that same child tells a totally different story in open court. The case is dismissed and our confidence is shaken. But how many such incidents are there in any year? Are they on the increase? Or is it almost unheard of and is that why it becomes anecdotal?
At the moment we must argue by anecdote because there is no other way to argue. We are free as the wind to speculate because we have so few facts and almost no statistics. The amendment, if the Government will be so good as to accept it, will start a process of appraisal which will build up a database of fact and of evidence which will enable researchers and practitioners to propose adaptations to our systems which will be built on the rock of knowledge and not on the sand of speculation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, the requirement to publish the results of the reviews would encourage a process of consultation with the people most nearly concerned. I stress that one should seek the views and the opinions of the children involved. We should listen to what those children say. I remember all too well when, in universities, we arrogantly assumed that there was no point in having students on academic committees because they would not know what they or we were talking about. We were wrong then and I hope that we shall not make the same mistake here.
To consult the children as part of the process could only be of benefit. In this relatively untrodden area of new technology and child witnesses we are setting a fresh course. We are breaking new ground and at the same time we are walking in a minefield. Surely we need all the help that we can get.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Pigot provisions in Clauses 43 to 46 represent radical changes to the way in which the courts treat the evidence of children. The Government entirely accept that they have a clear responsibility to monitor the implementation and the operation of what are important reforms.
I repeat the undertaking given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State and assure the Committee that the Government will be keeping a close eye on how the reforms work out in practice. The amendment seeks to place an obligation upon the Secretary of State to carry out the review and publish the results. One must be careful to realise what that means. It is important to include in the Bill that which is important. The Pigot Committee certainly recommended a review, and rightly so. However, it did not recommend a statutory provision to that effect,
84
and perhaps it did not do so because it considered that the Government would heed the recommendation. Indeed we shall, and I suggest that we do not need a statutory duty to do that.
The purpose of the new provisions is to enable children's evidence to be more easily heard by the courts and to reduce the stress on a child witness giving evidence in court so that more child abusers can be brought to justice. That is the purpose of the alterations. Of course we want to ensure that the new provisions are achieving those aims and that the departments concerned are dealing with them properly. Indeed, those departments are already discussing how best that may be achieved. We have in mind commissioning independent research specifically for those purposes and will, of course, make full use of the statistical resources both in the Home Office and in the Lord Chancellor's department.
I assure the Committee that we shall not withhold the results of such a review nor any proposals arising from it. However, the formal process of the new clause would make the process rather inflexible and cumbersome and, because the Government intend to do it anyhow, it would be unnecessary.
Lord Mottistone: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will comment on the point that I made. The present statistics produced both by his own department and by the Lord Chancellor's department do not provide any information of hard data in regard to children such as we want to see. What is distressing is that the current picture about evidence in regard to crime in relation to children is so inadequate. We are concerned that the Government will do no better in the future unless there is pressure to make them do so.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl the Minister repeated what he described as an existing undertaking to review. I believe he went on to say that the results of such a review would not be withheld. Perhaps he would care to comment on the text of the amendment, which imposes a duty to publish the results. Is there not a difference between publication and not withholding?
Earl Ferrers: If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is indulging a little in semantics. It is difficult to believe that a Government who have introduced new arrangements of a far-reaching nature in relation to children will not take great care in regard to the effect that those provisions will have. Of course they will take care. It is our intention to take care.
New research is being commissioned on this important area. My noble friend will be glad to know that we shall not be relying solely on statistics. We want to see the provisions work as much as everybody else. If the statistics do not give the right information then new provisions must be introduced; that is precisely what we are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says that there is a difference between "publishing" information and "not withholding it". It is our intention that the statistics and information which flows from them should be public knowledge.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his full response and other noble Lords for taking part in

85
this debate. I am puzzled that the Home Office seems to be reluctant to accept statutory codes of practice and a statutory review process. Noble Lords who have attended the Chamber for a number of years will be aware that during the course of the past 10, even 20 years, countless Bills have been introduced where government departments have accepted statutory codes of practice and reviews. "What have they got to hide?" is the kind of question that springs to mind. Why do the Government make the firm decision that they will produce the information but do not want to be told to do so? That is rather petty for a government department, and I do not understand it.
I do not seek to be unreasonable. However, the government department concerned is being particularly careful not to have its affairs revealed to the great public who are to benefit from what is being done.
Earl Ferrers: I do not want to prevent my noble friend from withdrawing the amendment, if that is what he intends to do, nor do I wish to pre-empt him if that is not what he is going to do. We always have this fearful harangue over statutory codes of practice and requirements. Whenever we discuss affirmative or negative resolutions there is always a row.
I can only say to my noble friend and to the Committee that we talked earlier about statutory codes of practice. There is no point in putting something into a Bill unless it achieves a positive effect. When we were talking about a statutory code of practice it was suggested that the Bill should contain what was in the code of practice. As the Government intend to put them in the code of practice, there does not seem to be much point in making the provisions a statutory obligation. Where one has a code of practice, does it have a statutory effect on the court? That is the difference. In the amendment that we dealt with earlier that would not have been the case. There would not have been a statutory effect on the court. It would simply have obliged my right honourable friend to have drawn up a code of practice, which he intends to do in any event.
Here we have a very similar situation; namely, a statutory obligation put on to the Secretary of State to do some research, find out what the facts are and then to publish them. If my right honourable friend intends to carry out research and then to publish the facts, it seems pointless to put that requirement into the Bill because that is what he intends to do anyhow.
Lord Mottistone: I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments, but they do not take the matter very much further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Attendance at court of parent or guardian]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 32, line 39, at end insert:
("(1A) Where the court is satisfied that to require a parent or guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise his employment, it shall arrange for the proceedings to take place at a time at which the parent or guardian does not normally work.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment requires that, where attendance at court would jeopardise the
86
employment of the parent of a juvenile offender, a sitting should be arranged in the evening or at some other time when the parent is not at work. On reflection, I am sorry that I have drawn this amendment so narrowly because, taking into account Amendment No. 94 which we shall be discussing later and the question of fining and binding over parents, I wish now that I had made this amendment much wider than dealing just with the question of employment.
I have often attended the magistrates' court when a child has appeared with no parent. More likely, one has been in court with a child when the mother only has attended and never, or perhaps very rarely, has the father attended. Therefore, it is always the mother who has to bear the brunt of everything. More women are going out to work than ever before. There is a great deal of unemployment. It will be a very serious situation when one or other of the parents has to give up work. Equally, I believe Section 2 of the Children Act 1989 states that there should be parental responsibility. I think that responsibility means responsibility on the part of both parents and not just one. That is only fair and right.
It should be possible for parents to say that they cannot attend court in the daytime. As is the case in Scotland where a parent cannot attend during the day, it should be possible to arrange a sitting in the magistrates' court in the evening. The Magistrates' Association has agreed with this proposal and thinks that it is right. Furthermore, the Justices' Clerks' Society says that its Members are aware from their daily experience that the repeated attendance of parents at court may jeopardise their employment.
I know it is said that if there is to be an evening court, as there is in Scotland, there will be extra costs, but I maintain that they will not be great. The country should be prepared to pay the costs. As I have said, I do not believe that they will be very great. Amendment No. 94 deals with fines and binding over. How can it be possible to bind over or fine parents if neither of them is there or if one parent only is there? If the parents do not wish to attend court because of their employment and the fact that they would lose money, if they did have to attend they may be unable to pay the fine. We should follow Scotland with its panel system. At any rate, we should give parents the choice of attending one evening, particularly as the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society agree with this amendment. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I support this amendment. I remind the Committee of the obligation now contained in this Bill. That obligation is very clear. It states through a new clause to be inserted in our law that:
"Where a child or young person is charged with an offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, the court—(a) may in any case, and (b) shall in the case of a child or a young person who is under the age of sixteen years, require a person who is a parent or guardian of his to attend at the court during all the stages of the proceedings".
There is a proviso—
"unless and to the extent that the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require such attendance, having regard to the circumstances of the case".

87
I am not sure that the words "the circumstances of the case" cover the circumstances of the parents. I think the words
"having regard to the circumstances of the case",
make the requirement mandatory in the case of a young person or child under the age of 16 and discretionary in any other case.
That is a very serious obligation on the parent. We must be careful about what we are doing. If the court proceedings are held in the normal way during the day either the mother or father—the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], has emphasised that in many cases it may be the mother—will have to go to the employer to get leave of absence. Apart from the inconvenience of giving that leave, the employer will no doubt receive an answer to his inquiry as to why the parent has to go to court—"Because my child is in trouble. There is a charge against him of stealing". That is not a very agreeable situation for a parent to face, especially where the parent has been absolutely dutiful in the way in which the child has been brought up; most likely the child has been encouraged to go to church and do all kinds of righteous things, but this situation has arisen.
Apart from the risk of losing a job, is it right that in this kind of case the courts should be the masters of the situation concerning the parent or should they be the servants? I do not think it is a bad thing for the juvenile courts to have the motto of the Prince of Wales, which is "Ich Dien" (I serve). Should not the juvenile courts also serve the proper interests of those who are before them when we are looking at a Bill which makes it mandatory in certain cases, if the courts so order, that the parent must be there throughout the whole of the proceedings? As the noble Baroness said, there may be inconvenience. She rightly pointed out that when the White Paper hinted at this provision about the compulsory attendance of parents, the magistrates themselves drew attention to the hardship and difficulties that might be caused if proper provision was not made for the convenient attendance of parents who are employed.
The noble Baroness also pointed out that the Justices' Clerks' Society felt—I am paraphrasing—that this might create grave difficulties. The Government should say, without equivocation and without the need for further consideration, that this is just. The courts were made for the offenders, not the offenders for the courts.
Lord Mottistone: I support the amendment. I recognise the difficulties that might be caused. My noble friend has said that the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society support this provision. I believe that. The only argument I can possibly see against it is that one would perhaps have to have another court clerk on a particular bench in order to cover the extra work. One does not know what the extra work might be and one might have to have a little more money to pay them overtime.
I can see no other objection to this. I am sure that the magistrates in my own county, provided it is not too onerous a burden, would be prepared to spare the time. I am equally sure that my court clerks would be
88
too if it was going to produce a better result. I cannot see any objections. Unfortunately we have on the Isle of Wight periodic riots and invasions by people on motor scooters and courts have to be called over a weekend. This would be the same sort of thing. It does not happen very often happily, because the summer comes only once a year and the visits come only once a summer. However, these things do happen. One does not want to be too rigid about this in looking at what would be a marginal amount of increased expense.
Baroness David: I support the amendment too. What the noble Lord has just said is quite right. Some magistrates might be quite pleased to sit in the evening instead of perhaps in the morning or the afternoon when they have to give up their work. I also support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. So often one has been in court when there has been just the one parent of a child. I think it is very important, if possible, to have both parents there. They should be. I do not have anything more to say. This is a very sensible amendment and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I entirely agree with the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said in moving it that we should look north to Scotland where this is done already. If we look around us we find that, far from objecting to it, those who are most affected—the magistrates' clerks and the magistrates themselves—actually proposed this. If we look south to France we find that it has long been the practice. It is an amazement to them. They gasp and stretch their eyes when they find that we are so rigid that we do not put the family first. Putting the family first means adjusting sitting times to when the family can attend. Whether we look north, south or just around us, this amendment is acceptable.
Baroness Seear: I shall be very brief because it seems rather futile to stand up and say, after everybody else has said it, that I agree with this amendment, since I have my name to it. However, I should like to make one point. On second thoughts it is perhaps rather a pity that we included the phrase "would jeopardise his employment". It should not be necessarily only when employment would be jeopardised. I can think of all kinds of stupid and time-consuming arguments as to whether employment would be jeopardised. It should be a matter of agreement that a court would sit if a request was made by the parent and the court thought that this was a reasonable thing to do. It should not insist on evidence that it would jeopardise employment.
If it were considered that court sittings in the evening would not occur too often—although I agree that it would be rather a good thing—I should have thought that, with encouragement, quite a number of employers would not only give time off, certainly in the larger organisations, but would be prepared to pay for time off. If parents were not given paid time off but were given time off in the form of leave of absence without pay, the courts should pay for loss of earnings when a parent attends court and the court did not sit

89
in the evening. There are variations around this theme as to how to get a parent into court. All of them are possible and they should be covered by this provision.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I wish only to add that this amendment has far greater implications than the specific matter of the juvenile court. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government and that it will send a message to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that courts throughout the country sit not for the convenience of the judges and the magistrates but for the convenience of the public. That message should be taken on board by courts other than juvenile courts. I hope that that message will go home to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. This amendment is a good occasion to make the point.
Earl Ferrers: I had hoped that the dinosaur lawyer would come up with a controversial point of view or one contradictory to that which had been expressed by others, but he did not do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed his hope that we would be able to accept this amendment without equivocation. One always hopes that but it does not always work out the way that one might wish. The noble Lord made one quite curious point. He said that the courts were made for offenders and not offenders for the courts. Courts are made for justice and justice includes both sides. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, shakes his head. Justice consists of two sides of an argument and not one.
The duty of the courts to require parents to attend court is not intended to be used without regard to the circumstances of the case or indeed the circumstances of the parents. Clause 47 makes it quite clear that the court need not require parental attendance if it is satisfied,
"that it would be unreasonable … having regard to the circumstances of the case".
I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it is important that parents should attend and that it should not always be only the mother who attends.
The phrase "the circumstances of the case" is intended to encompass all eventualities, including the effect on the employment of the parent, where it is relevant. I entirely agree that it would be quite wrong to jeopardise a parent's employment by requiring attendance at a court. I have no doubt that the courts would, could and can take this into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that the magistrates' clerks and justices want this provision. The clerk to the justices already has power to list cases as he considers appropriate in the interests of justice. I understand that courts can and do sit at different times. However, in setting the cases which are appropriate in the interests of justice he will need to consider the needs of all those involved in the case—not only the needs of the defendant or the parents but the needs of the victim and of witnesses who also have work and domestic commitments. These all have to be taken into account. They are also important. If the victim or a witness is also a young person he too might lice his parents to be able to accompany him to court and to provide support. The court has to
90
consider all these relevant factors. It would be wrong to place a specific requirement on the courts to arrange the times of the proceedings solely to suit the parent or the guardian of the defendant.
I understand the concern which is expressed by my noble friend and around the Committee. However, I think the ability for courts to arrange times of sittings is available now. It is important that they should make these arrangements in view of all the interested parties and not just one interested party.
9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl may have misled himself on the matter. I am sure that he would never mislead the Committee. It is not just a question of fixing a time when it is convenient for all the parties involved; the amendment specifically says that when the court requires the attendance of a parent, it will, for the convenience of that person where the employment position is jeopardised, fix a hearing not for the whole case but for the time when it wishes to hear what that parent has to say. It is not a question of all the days of the hearing being arranged to suit the convenience of the parent. When the court requires the attendance of a parent and such attendance will jeopardise the employment position, then for the purpose of hearing the parent, the court will fix a time which will ensure that the employment position is not jeopardised.
At this stage, perhaps Members of the Committee will allow me to make a point which I did not make previously. If the parent's employment is jeopardised, what will the atmosphere at home and the relationship between parent and child be like? Surely the court will want to make that as solid, as firm and as warm as possible in order to get over the difficulty in which the juvenile finds himself.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assist us on a different matter. Can he tell us what is the penalty position so far as concerns this clause? In other words, what happens if the parent is unable to attend court for one reason or another? I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to help us on that matter.
I am concerned to note that the noble Earl has chosen to ignore the position of the Scottish children's panel. That aspect was put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but he chose not to reply. I hope that he will now be able to do so. If that is possible in Scotland, why is it not possible in England and Wales? The additional difficulty which the noble Earl must recognise is that we are often dealing with a situation where there is only one parent available. As we know, there are single-parent families in many inner-city areas, and many of the children in that situation have a disposition to appear before the courts. In cases where there is but one breadwinner, it seems to me to be quite astonishing that the Government are apparently not prepared to move in the direction suggested by the noble Baroness. I very much hope that they will think better of it.
Earl Ferrers: The Government are always prepared to consider such matters; but whether they consider

91
them in a way which may be considered to be better is a matter ultimately for Members of the Committee to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that parents could be called at different times at the request of other parties. However, I do not think that that would be realistic in the context of a juvenile court hearing. Such matters are normally dealt with in one session. It would be remarkable if one were to attend a court which was specially convened to hear one person's evidence. With regard to the children's panels, the legal system in Scotland is different. Our juvenile court system works well and is suited to our needs.
I understand why Members of the Committee are concerned about the matter. I certainly do not wish to see a situation where a parent was unable to attend court, or a court sitting at a time when a parent could not attend. However, as I said earlier, I believe that there are many occasions when courts sit at different times in order to meet the convenience of certain parties. It would be wrong to put the onus totally upon the courts to sit at a time to suit the needs of one particular party in the case; in other words, the defendant. The courts have to consider the needs of all the parties involved, of which the defendant is one.
Lord Hylton: The Minister continually refers to defendants and the parents of defendants. Surely the amendment could be read the other way around. In other words, the parents in question might be those of the plaintiff.
Earl Ferrers: That is precisely the point I made at the beginning of my response. That is why it is most important that the court should take account of the needs of all parties in the case.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl is quite right to say that the Scottish legal system is different from that which exists in England and Wales. However, unhappily, that does not get over the problem. Were issues of the kind that we are now discussing to take place in Scotland, it would lead to a situation where a children's panel would meet in the evening. The issue is not about the legal system in Scotland. The question is: why are we not prepared to put parents in England and Wales into the same position as that which applies in Scotland?
I also asked the noble Earl, as no doubt he will recall, what was the penalty provision as regards a parent who fails to appear in court. Finally, in my view the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a powerful point which was not wholly answered by the noble Earl. If one looks at the new Section 34A(1) of the 1933 Act, it will be seen that there is a requirement on,
"a person who is a parent or guardian of his to attend at the court during all the stages of the proceedings"—
and then comes the particular point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention—
"unless and to the extent that the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require such attendance"—
and these are the relevant words—
"having regard to the circumstances of the case".
With the greatest respect, that does not seem to me to indicate that the court would take account of the
92
problems of a parent in attending a court case; it relates to the circumstances of what is alleged to be a criminal offence, and that is a wholly different question.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked what the penalty was for non-appearance. I have an idea that he might know what it is. In the last resort, it is the issue to a constable of a warrant to arrest the person to bring him before the court. I accept that that is severe. I do not believe that it would happen often. I accept that there is anxiety about this matter, and I am prepared to consider what the Committee has said. I cannot give an undertaking to reach the agreement the Committee would like, but I shall consider what has been said to see whether there is any way in which we can meet the points. I doubt whether there will be, because there are a number of other sides to the coin. I shall consider what has been said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I do not suggest that he has made a commitment, but he has undertaken to look at the matter again, and I very much welcome that.
Baroness Faithfull: I am somewhat dazed by the replies given by my noble friend the Minister. He is usually down to earth and full of common sense, but it may be late in the evening. There are two matters I did not understand. First, did I understand him to say that it would be possible—and the provision is now available—for a court to be called? Secondly, he seemed to think that a special court would be called for a special case. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, in Scotland a special court is not called for a special case. It is known that a court meets on a certain evening once a fortnight. One is therefore in a stronger position legally if a parent does not attend. The parent may say he cannot attend during the day. It would then be possible to say, "A fortnight hence there will be an evening court. If you attend then, it will be possible for the case to be heard". If the parent does not attend, from a legal point of view one is then in a good position to take action against him. If one merely says, "You must attend the court during the day", one is not in a strong position to charge the parent with not attending.
I shall withdraw the amendment for one reason: I feel that I have drafted it badly. It is too wide. It is not specific enough. I shall withdraw it because I have made a mistake which I should like to rectify. My noble friend said that he will look at the amendment. If I had drafted the amendment correctly I should have pressed it. I shall obviously not press it tonight, but I shall return to the issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 32, line 40, leave out from ("person") to ("in") in line 1 of page 33 and insert ("who—

(a) is in the care of a local authority; or

(b) is provided with accommodation by a local authority").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is an attempt—I am sure that the Minister will appreciate it—to

93
help the Government express what we believe to be their desire in this legislation but which we think, with great respect, is not carried out by the Bill's wording.
Clause 47 provides, as I said before, for a new section to be inserted into the 1933 Act in place of an existing section. As we have just seen, under new Section 34A(1) the Bill requires a parent to attend court. Subsection (2) states:
"In relation to a child or young person"—
I emphasise these words—
"for whom a local authority have parental responsibility",
a local authority representative attends in place of the parent.
Local authorities do not have parental responsibility for children provided with accommodation. I believe that under the Children Act 1989 the new term is "voluntary care". So we are coming to the Government's rescue with the amendment by making it abundantly clear that it is the local authority which should attend in both those cases, despite the fact that the latter case does not come within the definition in the Bill of a child or young person for whom a local authority has parental responsibility. The amendment is thrown as a present to the Government Front Bench. I hope that they will accept it with grace. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for throwing a gift to the Government; it does not often happen. In view of his generosity, perhaps I may take the opportunity to explain to him exactly what we have sought to do in Clause 47 in relation to the attendance at court of local authority representatives with juveniles.
First we have provided for the local authority to be regarded as the parent or guardian of a child or young person in certain specified circumstances. This means that where those circumstances apply, the court will be able to require a local authority representative to attend court rather than the parent or guardian. This is intended to reverse in part the decision in a case in 1983 between Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police. It held that where a child or young person is in care, the local authority is not a guardians for the purposes of Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (and by implication Section 34 also, which is amended by Clause 47).
Secondly, we have worked on the presumption that, when a child or young person appears before a court, it should in most cases be his or her parent or guardian who attends with that child or young person. Parents and guardians have direct and real responsibilities for their children. Even when the child is being looked after by a local authority, the latter must, under the Children Act 1989, try to ascertain the wishes of the parents before making a decision about the child. This is surely right. So in Clause 47 we have drawn very narrowly the circumstances in which the local authority must attend court. Two conditions must be met. The child or young person must be in the care of or provided with accommodation by the local authority. This reflects Section 22 of the Children Act, which places a general duty on local authorities in relation to children looked after by them. The second
94
and more restrictive condition is that the local authority must have assumed parental responsibility for the juvenile in question as defined in Section 3 of the Children Act. In other words, it has assumed all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to a child. A local authority only assumes parental responsibility when a care order is made under Section 33 of the Children Act or an emergency protection order is made under Section 44. A local authority may have a number of general duties in relation to a child without assuming parental responsibility. But Clause 47 will bite on a local authority only when both conditions are satisfied.
I turn now to the gift of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his amendment. I suggest that it would simply remove the condition that a local authority must have assumed parental responsibility. This would increase the proportion of cases where the local authority representative would have to attend court with the child, since the local authority would be regarded as the parent or guardian in all cases where the child or young person was in care or was provided with accommodation by them and not just in those cases where a care order or an emergency protection order had been made as well. I doubt whether that is what the noble Lord intended, but it is the effect of the amendment, which is probably the reverse of what he intended.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I well understand that the Minister fears gifts if they are borne by Greeks, but we do not happen to belong to that nationality on the Opposition Front Bench.
Earl Ferrers: Did the noble Lord say something about Greeks? I missed his bon mot.
Lord Mishcon: I am not sure that the bon mot deserves repetition. Possibly the noble Earl follows the maxim that he fears gifts when they are borne by Greeks. However, the nationality of the Opposition Front Bench is not Greek; therefore he need not fear it.
I could not have made myself clear, or the noble Earl has been misled as to the reason for my amendment and thinks that it is unnecessary. I ask him a straight question: regarding children who are brought into voluntary care, does he intend that the local authority shall under this clause be present, be ordered to be present or be expected to be present in respect of a juvenile who is brought before the court and who is in voluntary care?
If the noble Earl believes that that is what the clause means, will he kindly look at the present wording at the beginning of subsection (2)? He will find that it is limited to those,
"for whom a local authority have parental responsibility".
As for those who are in voluntary care, namely those who come under paragraph (b) and are provided with accommodation, the authorities do not have parental responsibility for the children. That is the legal position, as I understand it. So if the noble Earl intends authorities which have voluntary care of the

95
children by providing them with accommodation to be covered by subsection (2) he, or the draftsman, has failed in that attempt. We are trying to put the matter right.
It is a straight question: do the Government intend that those in voluntary care should be covered by subsection (2) or not? If the Government do so intend, the wording of the clause is faulty and the amendment puts it right. If the Government do not so intend, I drop my point. But they will have to come back with an amendment at a later stage which provides that those in voluntary care should come within the purview of this subsection.
Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Lord for making his point so clearly, and for making clear his action. The noble Lord asked whether the Government intend that subsection (2) should include children in voluntary care. The answer is that that is not the intention. Therefore, as I understand it, the noble Lord drops his case.
Lord Mishcon: I hesitate to repeat the words of my noble friend by way of his description of what this clause is in that event.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that the noble Lord will, because it was probably not in legal language and I should understand it.
Lord Mishcon: I shall resist the temptation to repeat it.
As I understand the position, there is no difference between (a) and (b), and therefore the alternative expressed by the word "or" is not intended; the Government do not intend to cover those authorities which provide the young persons with accommodation. If that is not intended, why is the wording of subsection (b) there at all as the alternative to the children who are in care? The alternative is "or is provided with accommodation by them". That is voluntary care. If the noble Earl says that the Government do not intend to cover voluntary care cases, why are those words in? The only words he needs are "is in their care".
The last thing in the world I want to do is to embarrass the noble Earl, and I shall continue to talk if that is of help.
Earl Ferrers: That will be unnecessary. The noble Lord never embarrasses me, or only about once a day.
The noble Lord has drawn attention to a certain point. My understanding is that that point was not intended to be covered, but as the noble Lord is concerned about the matter I shall certainly look at it and see whether the drafting is right or whether it should be improved.
Lord Mishcon: I cannot ask for more. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Responsibility of parent or guardian for financial penalties]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 33, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) In taking the decisions required by subsections (1) and (1A) above, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

(a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence,

(b) whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum,

(c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian,

(d) the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian,

as well as to any others which appear to be relevant".").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee knows, there are very serious implications in this Bill for the parent of a young offender—namely the ability of the court to fine the parent, which can be a very substantial amount within the maximum fixed by the Bill, if the court decides that it is appropriate to do so. To leave the matter there without any guidelines at all as to the circumstances in which the court should penalise in that way a parent who is not before the court as a defendant is a very serious matter. I know that the Committee will have at heart the need to be clear about what we are doing in that regard.
In the amendment we set out what we believe should be inserted in relation to the taking of decisions of that nature. If those guidelines are available we shall avoid the vagaries to which those of us who are concerned with this issue have often drawn the attention of the House; namely, the unfortunate differences that occur in one court as against another. A magistrate or court in one area may well feel that it is sensible and proper to fine a parent in certain circumstances whereas in another area an entirely different view may be taken by the court, since the courts have no guidelines in our primary legislation as to how they should act.
In support of the amendment and the grounds that we have put forward for guidance for the court I should like to refer to a Home Office circular to courts—Circular No. 3/1983 entitled Criminal Justice Act 1982: Sanctions Against Parents and Guardians. Paragraph 3 of that circular contains, in the main, the provisions that we have included in the amendment. As it is not a very long paragraph I should like to place it on the record because it is so important. I ask for the Committee's patience while I read the paragraph. It reads:
"During the passage of the Bill, considerations which might be relevant to the question of whether it would be unreasonable to order payment by the parent or guardian were discussed. It was suggested, for example, that regard should be had to factors such as whether the parents had neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person"—
the Committee will recognise that language in the amendment—

97
"or whether any such neglect had caused or contributed, whether directly or indirectly, to the commission of the offence;"—
again the Committee will recognise that that has been transplanted into the amendment—
"whether it was desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for the payment of the fine, compensation or costs, or for part of it; the relationship between the child or young person and the parent or guardian, and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering that the parent or guardian pay the sum adjudged; and the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian. The Act leaves the assessment of what was reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances to the discretion of the court; but the Government believes that considerations such as those mentioned above may well be among I hose to which courts will wish to have regard in coming to their decision as to what constitutes unreasonableness in E particular case".
I cannot do better than to repeat what is contained in the Home Office circular in relation to parallel circumstances to those which we are now considering. I feel that the Committee, and indeed the Government, would not wish to leave that power of the courts without any guidance in primary legislation as to the considerations which the courts should have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I should like to say that Clause 48 is a pretty horrible clause. It goes about amending the Act of 1933 and, in the process, refers to two subsequent Acts. I am quite sure that, if my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale were here, he would demand instant consolidation.
Having said that and referring now to the substance of Amendment No. 92, I believe that four important criteria have been picked out and well explained. I hope that the Government will take them extremely seriously.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should like to say that I find Clause 48 difficult to swallow. However, with the proposed amelioration, if that is the right word, which has been introduced by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I can just about swallow it, although I would much rather that it did not impinge on juvenile crime legislation at all. It will only exacerbate bad relations between member; of the families concerned, which is the very last thing that we want.
The approach that I should prefer is exemplified by a parent support group. I shall not name the place, but it is a voluntary self-help group, initiated by parents and supported by local social workers. The group was formed by the social workers and parents of children who have been in trouble. They are mainly single parents and the children have been getting into trouble, offending and truanting from school and have become involved in drug abuse and so on. The parents felt that they needed direction and a better understanding of why their children were getting into trouble. They simply did not know and felt that parents who were in a similar position would be better able to help each other than any other scheme which had been devised by social workers or anyone else. The group is able to look at the problems and stress
98
that families face when their young people offend and enables families to cope with crises through mutual support.
Is not that the constructive approach? What is likely to be the effect of Clause 48 on the parent support group? It cannot make things better. It can introduce resentment and stress into an already stressful situation. I can only lament that the amendment can do no more than ameliorate a rough and unnecessary provision which has been inserted in the Bill by the Government. I find it difficult to believe that they regard the child as coming first in this and other cognate legislation which is going through at the moment. It will not make the situation better for the child or the parent and, but for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should expect it to be disastrous. I strongly hope that the Government will take account of what the noble Lord said and either accept the words that he proposes or something very like them, because these four principles are needed by the courts if they are to operate the clause effectively.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would operate on Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act, which at present places a duty on the court to order a parent or guardian to pay a fine, costs or compensation imposed on a child or young person if it is decided that a financial penalty is the most appropriate disposal. There is to be a presumption that the court will order the parents to pay, but it does not have to do so if that would be unreasonable or if no parent can be found. In Clause 48 of the Bill we are making certain amendments to Section 55 of the young persons Act 1933, but we have retained the guiding principle that a parent should pay a fine imposed upon a child convicted of an offence unless there are overriding reasons why he or she should not. The purpose is not to punish the parents for their children's misdeeds but to bring home clearly to them the consequences of their children's unlawful behaviour. The implications for the parents themselves should encourage them to take a more active interest in what their children do.
The noble Lord's amendment would dilute that principle and reduce the impact of Section 55 on parents. Before a parent could be ordered to pay a fine the court would in all cases have to think of a number of factors, such as whether the offence resulted partly from a failure to exercise parental care and control and what effect making the parent pay would have on family relationships. The court would have to take a view on those factors and presumably that could be challenged on appeal. What it means is that a number of obstacles would be placed in the way of the operation of Section 55 and the clear principle which it embodies, and the amendment would weaken the existing responsibilities of the parent.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has quoted from Home Office Circular 3/83 relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Paragraph 3 of that circular suggests, as he pointed out, that the court may well want to take account of certain factors, now produced in the text of the amendment, in deciding whether a parent or guardian should pay a fine imposed on a juvenile. He

99
would be the first to agree that there is a world of difference between giving guidance to the courts and requiring them by statute to take account of those and other considerations in every case. I believe that would result in an inflexible approach and a slowing down of justice. That is the reason why we would prefer not to have the amendment which the noble Lord seeks to put into the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I wish I understood that reasoning because I was anxious to do so, but I cannot. To say in regard to penal measures against people who are not defendants that we give no guidance to the courts of this land, they having been given this power, as to how to deal with matters of this sort is asking for chaos as well as injustice. I say with deep respect to the noble Earl that exactly the same argument could have been used in regard to other measures in the Bill. The Bill lays down criteria which courts must consider when imposing custodial sentences, fixing the length of custodial sentences, passing suspended sentences, imposing community service orders and fixing the size of fines. To leave a huge gap as regards the principle that when dealing with the question whether or not a parent should be fined it is much too much trouble for the courts to go through that list is not an answer which I believe the noble Earl would seriously want to give the Committee. If he seriously wants to give that answer I do not think the Committee will accept it for one moment.
Earl Ferrers: Of course the information was given in all seriousness. What the noble Lord is saying is that there are places in the Bill where the length of the sentence and what you do when you impose a community sentence are spelt out. That is perfectly correct. But he said that we do not give guidance to the courts. One does give guidance. Guidance is given under the circular.
Under the noble Lord's amendment the courts would have to take into account by statute the relationship of the child or the young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering a sum to be paid by the parent or guardian. If they came to a certain conclusion, the defendant would be able to appeal against it. That is far more difficult to write down as a statutory obligation than it would be to have under guidance. For many years courts have had the power to require parents to pay fines and been guided by the information which the Home Office circular has given.
The noble Lord seeks to put that guidance as a statutory obligation. I suggest that such things are not very easy to have as a statutory obligation against which people could appeal.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If one wanted to take that argument seriously not only would the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, obviously have been withdrawn from this Bill but so would provisions such as the Bail Act and a whole series of items. If one were to take seriously the flexibility argument, that would not have been done.
100
No doubt it is true—and certainly it is true of this particular debate and arguably this Government—that when the word flexibility is mentioned one begins to be suspicious. One is suspicious because it is constantly used by governments of different political persuasions to resist amendments of the kind produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which would give specific guidance to the courts. The fact of the matter is, as those of us who have spent any time in a juvenile court will know perfectly well, that there can be a situation where a member of the family appears and a rather frightened parent appears with the child. It represents a family crisis. What will happen if we pass this clause unamended is that there will be still more disruption within the family. One thing of which one can be quite certain is that if this clause is passed unamended, there will be appalling situations in some of those families. Children will be ejected from their homes. That is in no sense an overstatement of the position.
The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly drew attention to the Government's circular of 1983. It seems to me that the language in that circular gives valuable guidance to the courts. The circular does not try to imprison the courts in highly restrictive language. It enables Parliament to give guidance to the courts as to how this matter should be handled.
The Government have said that they attach very high importance to the issue of family relationships. We heard that from the lips not only of the former Prime Minister but from many other Members of the Government. I can think of nothing that will do more damage to family relationships than provisions of that sort. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put before the Committee a perfectly reasonable formula whereby the courts will be given guidance by Parliament as to how they want this matter to be approached. It would be an enormous pity if we do not incorporate the language of this amendment in the clause.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the possibility of a circular of guidance to the courts. If he could say that in this case there will be such a circular and that it will incorporate the four paragraphs (a) to (d), that might give grounds for withdrawing the amendment. It might also overcome the point which the noble Earl himself mentioned of appeals from the first court to a superior court.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the courts needed guidance. Up until now the courts have had guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to put that guidance in statutory form. It has not been in a statutory form heretofore because there has been guidance and it has worked. We believe that it should be in the form of guidance and not in the form of a statutory injunction, if one might so call it.
The circular will be considered and will no doubt be updated. I cannot tell the noble Lord what will be in it. However, I have no reason to believe that it will not contain the very points referred to in the amendment.

101
We should not be misled. We come back to the matter discussed earlier: whether it should be in the form of guidance, which is more flexible—to use a word which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not like—or whether it should be in the form of a statutory requirement. I believe that it is better in the form of guidance.
Lord Mishcon: I intend to be brief because the Committee has been extremely patient. However, it is a terrifically important matter. We are dealing with penalising those who appear before the court not as a defendant but as a parent of a defendant.
Members of the Committee who try to study the problem may be prepared—the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was not so prepared—to say that in some cases it is admissible to make such a provision. I do not say that the power has not existed in the past. I merely say that it is a novel concept. When Parliament takes the responsibility for saying that that novel position shall obtain—namely, penalising those who are not before the courts as defendants—then Parliament has a responsibility to state in legislation the cases that it has in mind, without in any way saying that the court must be limited to those considerations—and one adds the words "and any other relevant consideration that the court may think appropriate". But those matters which Parliament and the Home Office have considered as being material should be there in the legislation.
The noble Earl seems to greet with apprehension the possibility that someone might be able to appeal against a court decision on the grounds that certain considerations were not taken into account. With respect, that is again a novel concept: that we are anxious to stop people from appealing against penalties, again, as I said, especially when the penalisation of those people is not against them as defendants but because of other considerations. I am not frightened by a right of appeal. I should have thought without a doubt that the right of appeal ought to be there.
The hour is late, the patience of the Committee is great and the courtesy of the Minister abundant. Taking all those matters into consideration, if the noble Earl would indicate that he will take into account this important debate and consider putting such provision into legislation, without undertakings of any kind, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment. But I stand firmly by the need for it.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the noble Lord's anxiety, which he puts with great force and clarity. He said that it was a novel concept. However, in this case novelty goes back to 1933. It does not seem to me novel if it goes back nearly 60 years. Of course I shall consider what has been said. I realise that the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee feel strongly about the matter. I shall think about what has been said and consider the position.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): If Amendment No. 92A is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 92AA.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 33, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92B. Clauses 47 to 49 contain provisions relating to responsibilities of a parent or guardian. Clause 48 amends the 1933 Act which contains powers allowing a parent or guardian to be ordered to pay a fine instead of a child or young person. Clause 48(2) inserts a new subsection into Section 55 of the 1933 Act. Its effect is to put a social services authority in the same position as a parent or guardian in relation to a child or young person in the care of the authority and provided with accommodation by that authority. I submit that that is not reasonable. The Association of County Councils looks on the new provision as unacceptable.
The proposal to make local authorities responsible for the fines of young offenders under the age of 18 in their care appears to go against the grain of the philosophy behind the Children Act 1989. A local authority will consider receiving into its care only a child or young person who represents the most challenging of cases. It will resort to care only once all other available options have been tried and failed. Therefore by their very nature the young people in question will have a number of problems of which offending will be only one. The prospect of many of those children and young people ceasing to offend as soon as they enter care is remote. The fining of the social services authority in such circumstances appears to be inappropriate and positively harmful in relation to a programme of care and rehabilitation.
The ACC has invited the Department of Health and the Home Office to indicate the justification for the inclusion of this novel provision. Significantly no response has been received to date. The holding of a social services authority responsible as a parent or guardian is a precedent which is not logical to adopt when the Home Office is not responsible for offences perpetrated by prisoners in its care, on bail or on parole. If Clause 48(2) is appropriate, it would also seem logical to hold magistrates responsible for offences committed by alleged offenders to whom they grant bail.
As regards social services authorities, civil remedies are at present available in respect of third party claims against children and young people in care. Justification for the liability contained in Clause 48(2) is therefore by no means clear. I hope that the Government are prepared to think again about the clause. I agree entirely with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Mishcon, in respect of the earlier amendment.
I must repeat that it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay and it would in the end be counter-productive. I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. My noble friend Lord Richard has tabled an amendment which combines our Amendments Nos. 92A and 92B with

103
the obligation to be put on parents. I am in total agreement with his amendment but shall leave him to make his case. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady David, in this amendment. Children come into the care of local authority social service departments through two routes. One is voluntary care. The parent asks for the child to be taken into care usually for a good reason—perhaps the parent cannot manage the child. Secondly, cases are committed by the courts to the local authorities, very often because the child is beyond parental control.
I had a very difficult case. I recommended to the court that the child should be sent to a penal institution because I recognised that the child was very difficult. The magistrates thought that it would be good for the local authority to be responsible for the child. Therefore, by order of the court it was my responsibility to look after the child. He was very difficult, had a shocking home background and was extremely unhappy. It is impossible to reform a child within two days of him coming into care. On the third day he slipped out of the children's home late at night and burnt down his school. The education officer rang me the next day and said, "If one of your children is going to burn down a school, could he burn down an old one instead of a new one?"
Under this Bill the local authority would be responsible for that child burning down that school. That is quite unreasonable. First, the child was committed to the care of the local authority by the court; and, secondly, it was impossible to reform the child within two or three days. A child is committed to the care of the local authority either by the court or by parents asking the local authority to take a child into care. Therefore it is quite impossible for local authorities to be responsible financially for the misdemeanours of the children in their care.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 92AA. The Committee will see that this amendment makes it quite clear that in relation to a child or young person who is being looked after by the local authority, an order under Clause 48 may not be made against the parent or guardian or local authority.
I believe that earlier the noble Earl quoted a case called Leeds City Council v. West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police. Whether or not he did, that case was decided under Section 55 of the 1933 Act to which we have referred quite often in our proceedings. That said very clearly that the fining under that 1933 Act was aimed at an individual and not at a public body or its agents such as foster parents. Therefore until this clause is put into the Bill, as I understand it, local authorities could not be penalised in the way in which we are penalising them now.
Sometimes legislation is put forward by those who have no intimate knowledge of the circumstances but to whom it looks like good law. If it looks like good law and it is possible to go for a local authority or parent where the child is being looked after by a local
104
authority, why not do that? If parents are to be penalised generally, why should that not apply also to the local authority?
That this sort of legislation may be put forward by those who have no intimate knowledge of what really goes on is a relevant consideration this evening as regards this amendment. Anyone who knows anything about the situation in some of our juvenile courts knows perfectly well that there are some courts where it is known that there is almost an open feud between the magistrates and the social workers. To the Government's credit, they are doing everything they possibly can by persuasion to remedy that. I am sure that in this legislation they are trying to see that those relationships, which should be much better, between courts and social workers are fundamentally improved. I cannot imagine an improvement coming out of the provision with courts being able to fine local authorities in that way.
Another real life situation relates to whom the Government think they are punishing. If local authorities feel that there is a possibility of being fined, they will not use their powers to look after young people. They will say, "This chap looks as though he might be a risk. Therefore we will see that greater use is made of secure accommodation in his case. We cannot face our local committee and say that we have been fined, so we will not take the chance".
Whom do the Government think they are punishing? Do they believe that the juvenile offender will say, "My word, what a dreadful thing I have done. The local authority has to pay a fine for my conduct. It is dreadful. It will really make me reform"? The average juvenile offender will laugh his head off at the fact that the local authority, which he unfortunately often regards as an enemy rather than a friend, must pay his fine. He will rejoice. He will say, "They have made the local authority responsible for what I have done. What a jolly good thing that is".
Is that the situation we want to procure? I repeat, it is a provision which does not look at the reality of what occurs in these circumstances. I think the Committee will, and I hope that the Government, on reconsideration, will agree to the amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I always thought that if I were to become involved in a tangle with the law—God forbid that it should ever happen!—there is nobody I should like better to defend my case than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He makes arguments enormously attractive, and he makes it seem so obvious that he must be right. However, although he often is right, he is not always right. There is sometimes another side to the argument which gets lost in his rhetoric.
The purpose of Section 2 of Clause 48 is to bring local authorities within the scope of Section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act involving the parental payment of children's fines. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not like that, but that is the purpose of it: to try to make parents responsible for what their children do. As I explained in an earlier

105
amendment, it is not a question of making the parents pay the fine for what their children do; it is to make the parents responsible for what their children do.
Section 4 provides for how a compensation order or fine imposed in such a case is to be calculated. We should be clear that Clause 48 will apply to local authorities only in certain restricted circumstances. Not only must the local authority have a general duty in relation to the juvenile by receiving him or her into their care, but they must also assume parental responsibility by virtue of a care order or emergency protection order. That gives them all the rights, duties, powers. responsibilities and authority which, by law, a parent has in relation to a child.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that the Home Office is not responsible for prisoners, and she asked why local authorities should be responsible for people under their control. The Home Office does not have parental responsibility for prisoners in this respect. It is only when the local authority takes on to itself the responsibilities of a parent that we believe it is right that they should share the responsibility for the children under their control which normal parents have for a child under their control.
The idea of parental responsibility entails an active interest in what a child or young person is doing. We take the view that those with parental responsibility must expect to face the consequences of what their children do and of their children's misbehaviour. If the important function of exercising parental responsibility falls to a local authority rather than to the parent or guardian, then the local authority should be liable to pay fine under Clause 48.
Some have argued that it would not be right to make the local authority pay a fine if a mischievous juvenile in care committed a crime because he wanted to cause trouble for the authority. Some have also argued that this would result in individual social workers being fined. The court would be able to waive the local authority's financial obligation if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to make it pay. The position in law is that the local authority and not the individual social worker would be liable to pay any fine which was imposed. Removing subsections (2) and (4) would have a number of unwelcome effects. It would dilute the meaning of parental responsibility which the local authority had assumed for the juvenile.
It is right that the social services department should take a close interest in what the juvenile is doing. Requiring the local authority to pay a fine resulting from a juvenile's misbehaviour emphasises that responsibility. It will make those responsible for the offender particularly diligent in trying to stop the juvenile committing crime. We seek to improve the present arrangements whereby victims are effectively deprived of compensation. Juvenile offenders in care will probably not have the means to pay realistic amounts of compensation. Under the Bill the youth court will be able to make a compensation order for up to £5,000 against the juvenile offender for personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence.
If the juvenile lives at home and his parent has responsibility for him, the parent may be asked to pay,
106
although the court would obviously have to take into account the parent's means. If the juvenile is in care no one could be asked to pay. The victim can be properly compensated in the first case but not in the second. In other words, if, for example, his property was burnt down by a juvenile who had a fairly wealthy parent, the victim could expect to be compensated. If he had his property burnt down by a juvenile who was in the care of a local authority, under the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the victim would not receive any compensation.
The effect would be to ensure that neither the parent nor the local authority would be required to pay a fine imposed on a juvenile who was being looked after by a local authority. That makes the situation even worse. The amendment does not make clear who, if anyone, would have parental responsibility in such cases. The victim would probably not receive compensation to which he or she was entitled. I know that the idea of making parents responsible for their children and what they do through misbehaviour is not one that is necessarily attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but, if one accepts that that is the philosophy behind the Bill, then it is only reasonable that it should apply also to the local authority which has parental responsibility over the child in its control.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend two questions. He said that the local authority takes unto itself responsibility for children. It does not take unto itself responsibility for children: it has responsibility for children by statute. Furthermore, a proportion of those children are in voluntary care, the parents having asked for the children to be taken into care. What is much more difficult is that the court has committed children to care and the local authority cannot refuse to accept them. It is an obligation incurred under statute.
A number of local authorities accept children into care, or have children committed to their care, but find that they have no suitable accommodation for a particular child. They therefore apply to a voluntary organisation, such as Barnardo's, the National Children's Home or the Church of England Children's Society, for a vacancy in one of their homes. The local authority then pays the voluntary organisation and the child is transferred to a home run by it. If the child then does damage, who is responsible under the provisions of the Bill? Is it the voluntary organisation by which the child is being looked after on behalf of the local authority or is it the local authority? If Barnardo's or any of the other voluntary organisations thought that they would be responsible I do not believe that they would accept the child.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say they would not. My noble friend said that some parents ask for their children to be taken into care voluntarily. That is perfectly true and I quite understand it. However, if local authorities are asked to take children into care voluntarily they very often do not assume parental responsibility at the same time. It is only when they do assume parental responsibility that this will actually operate.
My noble friend's second point concerned the local authority which takes a child into care but states it

107
does not have sufficient provision for the child and therefore gives it over to Barnardo's. That is somewhat less easy. If the local authority has the parental responsibility for the child then it will be responsible. If it then places the child in a Barnardo's home it presumably does not transfer parental responsibility to the Barnardo's home. The local authority still retains responsibility. It is only in the case where the local authority retains parental responsibility that the provision operates. It operates on the child irrespective of where the child happens to be.
Baroness David: That seems a most ridiculous answer. It really does. I was going to make some of the points which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made about children being committed to care. Local
108
authorities do not choose to have that responsibility put upon them—they have it thrust upon them. The Minister has shown very little understanding of what it is like in the social services. It is quite different from what he seems to think. It is most unfair to put this burden on to them. After all it will be the taxpayers or the local community charge payers who pay the fine. There is little enough money for the social services to do what they have to do.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the whole of Clause 48. The least he can do is to provide some criteria. If it were not so late at night I should be tempted to divide the Committee. I shall have to save it up for another time, perhaps a better time of day. This whole clause is totally misconceived. In the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 92AA:
Page 33, leave out lines 22 to 33 and insert:
("(5) In relation to a child or young person who is being looked after by the local authority, an order under this section may not be made against:

(i) his parent or guardian, or

(ii) the local authority.").

The noble Lord said: I share with my noble friend Lady David disappointment that important matters of this kind—I do not blame anyone for it—seem to come up at a very late hour. They come up in a diminished Chamber—I always try and say this so as not to be too unpopular—diminished only in quantity and not in quality. It is so disappointing when the arguments go all one way and there is no argument against an amendment to find that, because of the lateness of the hour, it is quite impossible in practice to put the matter to the Chamber.
It is in that spirit, which is exactly the spirit of my noble friend, that I ask the Minister to consider what has been said and to balance, if he will, the evils that would result from this clause against the benefit to the victim that he was telling the Committee about. I hope that that reconsideration will lead to an agreement in regard to the amendment. I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 92AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 92B not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Binding over of parent or guardian]:
Lord Skelmersdale: I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 93 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 93A and 94.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 34, line 13, leave out from ("offence") to ("the") in line 17 and insert ("the court by or before which he is so convicted may exercise the powers conferred by this section if satisfied that it would be reasonable to do so given").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 94. However, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 93. Clause 49(2) gives the court a duty to exercise powers with the consent of the parent or guardian—it states that the parent or guardian should,
"enter into a recognisance to take proper care"
of a child under the age of 16 years—or, if such consent is refused,
"and the court considers the refusal unreasonable"
the court may order the parent or guardian to pay a fine of £1,000. In my view the wording is very strange, although that is often the case in such Bills. It is one thing to say that you will obtain the consent of parent or guardian and quite another then to say straight away that a penalty applies in the case of consent being refused. However, that is by the way. In effect, the clause makes it the duty of the court to bind over parents as regards responsibility for their children, whereas my amendment would remove that duty and turn it into an option.
I have been advised on this amendment by the Magistrates' Association. The association has extensive experience in juvenile courts throughout the country. That leads it to feel great anxiety about the
110
present wording of Clause 49(1). Magistrates already have the power to bind over and they wish to retain it, although it is rarely used. Children who appear before magistrates come from families that are already fragile and under stress. I do not believe it to be part of the magistrates' role as sentencers to exacerbate that position by normally—I emphasise the word "normally"—imposing upon parents sanctions with which they may find it impossible to comply. Many of those parents need help and support, not punishment. Binding over parents could result in imprisonment, which would run totally contrary to the philosophy of the Bill.
As magistrates do not have to fine parents if they consider their refusal to consent to be reasonable, I suppose that my noble friend will say that it is an option in that sense. But that puts the courts in a difficult position. No doubt that is what the Government seek. However, it is putting them as courts in a much more difficult position as regards consent by parents in regard to complying with the law than if the existing situation with an option to bind over was to prevail.
It is all very well to say that we must have further ways to make parents take responsibility for their children. But, as the Magistrates' Association has advised me, it is the parents who find it difficult to tackle life and to make ends meet who will be most vulnerable to the provision. If we can, we want to persuade those people to accept the court, if not as a friend, then at least as a body which is very fair. The Bill, as worded, is not totally unfair because there are let-out clauses, but it creates a picture of a harsh court whose duty it is to be brutal if an excuse is not given.
It would be better if this provision were reworded in the way the amendment suggests. We should achieve the same result because the powers will still exist, but the courts would not be put in the position of having to exercise a power which they would find difficult to exercise and which magistrates do not like using in the way the Bill seeks. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 94. We have heard some strange arguments and considered some strange clauses in the course of discussing the Bill. I am bound to tell the Government that this is the silliest piece of legislation and the most arrant bit of nonsense with which we have been presented so far in Committee. What is the object of the exercise? As I understand it, it is to make parents take more responsibility for their children. I do not believe for an instant that we should persuade parents to take more responsibility for their children by having a presumption that if a child is convicted, the parent has to be bound over and that, if the parent refuses his consent to the binding over, he can face a fine of up to £1,000.
I can think of nothing that would be more disruptive of family relations than the automatic nature of what is proposed in the Bill. If the power were discretionary, as it is at the moment, I could understand it. Therefore in suitable and proper cases the court could say, "We think that in all the circumstances of the case it would be right to bind over the parents because there has been an absence of

111
responsibility", or "They have ignored the child in the past and have not bothered about what the child was doing, and if there is the goad of the binding over order, they will take more responsibility in the future". But with an approach which, in the words of the clause, provides:
"it shall be the duty of the court, in a case where the relevant minor has not attained the age of 16 years, to exercise those powers unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so, having regard to the circumstances of the case",
I can only say to the Government that they have the presumption totally the wrong way round. The presumption should not be in favour of binding over. It should exist as a penalty which the courts can use in suitable circumstances.
I know of no organization—none that has written to me or about which I have read—concerned with matters such as we have dealing with which has expressed itself as being in favour of the proposal. All the groups which oppose the provision, including organisations representing magistrates—after all they are the ones who have to operate the system—justices' clerks, probation officers, social workers, and resettlement organisations such as NACRO, accept the importance of parental responsibility, as does everyone else, and are actively concerned to find effective ways of reinforcing it. They oppose the measure because they know that in practice it would damage rather than increase parental responsibility. The Times summed up the point in a leading article on10th November 1990 in which it said:
"This is the kind of proposal that makes perfect sense to middle class ministers, who generally leave the taming of adolescence to their children's boarding schools. For, say, the single mother in Brixton, struggling against odds to keep a young person on track, they represent only a threat. Many such parents will be tempted to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Parental influence—the last, best hope of deflecting the youngster from a life of crime—will be removed. The magistrates do not want these powers. Parliament should not force them to have them".
On the face of it, this is a politically motivated piece of nonsense. The only organisation in favour of it is the Government. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Since every known organisation is against this, it would be extremely interesting if the Government would tell us from where this absurd idea came. Whose brain child is it—if "brain child" is the right term?
Baroness Faithfull: Amendment No. 94 is grouped with the amendment moved by my noble friend. It would leave out the presumption in Clause 49 in favour of binding over the parents of juvenile offenders. I shall not rehearse all the arguments put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. If parents are to be bound over in this way, I assure the Committee that it will be impossible to work with their families. It is one or the other. If one has a relationship with a family, over the years it is possible to help the parents and children later on to live as a family.
112
However, binding over would put paid to that and there would probably be more homeless children than at present.
I hope that the Government will think again about the matter. I assure the Committee that one cannot steamroller over personal relationships. If the Bill has this provision, then personal relationships will go out of the window. If that happens, children will be without a home and without parents interested in them. I hope that the Government will reconsider the point.
Lord Windlesham: I support Amendment No. 94 which will be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to which I have put my name. As I understand it, the Government's intention in this part of the Bill is not to punish the parent but to encourage parental responsibility and to strengthen family ties. It rolls well off the tongue, but I fear that the result of the three Clauses 47 to 49 and this clause in particular will be the opposite of what is intended. Many parents will feel that they have been punished and penalised. Family ties will be put under greater stress, causing a deterioration rather than an improvement in relations in the home.
I wish to dwell for a few minutes on the aspect of punishing or penalising parents for acts which they did not commit. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched on this in an earlier amendment. It is a matter of considerable importance. We should recognise that the provisions sail perilously close to the wind of criminal responsibility. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the child not the parent who committed, or is charged with having committed, a criminal act. At common law the mens rea that the prosecution must prove the defendant to have had at the time of committing the crime in order to secure conviction requires one of two elements, and two elements only: that there was a direct intention to bring it about or there was recklessness as to whether or not such a consequence might come about. It is crucial to state that this cannot simply be transferred to another person. So the route that has been chosen is negligence or lack of care.
It is too late to go into the history of this ambition, this well worn grail that has been pursued for over 100 years. Just one example is that in this House in 1890 an unsuccessful Bill was introduced, seeking to make general negligence in the care and control of a child a statutory offence for which parents would be punished by a small fine or ordered to pay compensation and subject to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. That was 101 years ago. The motivation was the same then as it is today. The Bill failed.
As we know, later legislation empowered the courts, where appropriate, to summon a parent to attend the court proceedings, or in certain circumstances to bind over parents to exercise due care and control of their children, but at the discretion of the court. The discretionary power was not widely used because the courts were aware of how counterproductive it could be in practice.
As we have heard, in Clauses 47 to 49 the discretionary powers are replaced by a statutory duty to secure the attendance of parents at court

113
proceedings against juveniles below the age of 16 and to bind them over, by entering into recognisance to take proper care of and exercise control over their children, and if there is refusal to give consent-"give consent" are oddly chosen words to use in this context-there is a financial penalty of up to £1,000. If the child re-offends, that recognisance is forfeited to the amount that has been set by the court.
Those provisions must be regarded as penalties of a different order to that which we have seen before. The draftsman, probably acting on the instructions of the Leader of the House (who has joined us for this debate) when he was Home Secretary, has recognised that, because in Clause 49(7) we find an appeal:
"A parent or guardian may appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order under this section made by the Crown Court, as if he had been convicted on indictment and the order were a sentence passed on his conviction".
So this is now appealable by statute, or would be if this clause went on the statute book.
There is much more to be said about the social impact in the family of this provision. I shall not repeat what has been said by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others. I would only say to my good friend on the Front Bench whom I so much admire, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been handling this Bill with such care for the Government, that although he remarked-not reading from his brief but speaking for himself-in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the aim of this part of the Bill is to make parents or local authorities acting as guardians take responsibility for the wrong-doing of their children, the criminal law is not an instrument that can achieve that end.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to ask whether the Government have taken into consideration a point made by that highly practical organisation, the Justices' Clerks' Society, that these provisions are going to add to the congestion in the courts. A bind-over has always required the person's consent. Here such consent is simply a mockery because there is a fine if there is no consent. The result will be protracted hearings in the court when parents refuse their consent. There will also be protracted hearings as to whether the parent should have the recognisance forfeited. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Windelsham, has pointed out, there will be further appeals after those protracted hearings. Quite apart from all the points which have been made already, this is an absolutely crazy provision from the purely practical point of view of adding to the congestion of the courts.
I hope that the noble Earl will spell out to the Committee how it is that every single organisation involved at the coal-face is profoundly against this provision. Why is it? Have they all gone completely mad? I hope that he will point out why each and every one of them is wrong.
Baroness Faithfull: Before my noble friend replies perhaps I may ask one question. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, there will be a right of appeal. Will a woman living in one room in a high-rise block of flats receive legal aid in order to appeal?
Viscount Tenby: I should like to speak very briefly in support of Amendment No. 94 and of the remarks made by noble Lords and the noble Baroness earlier. In particular, because he was the last person to speak before me, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who spoke about the amount of time that these new provisions will add to the magisterial system. I speak as a magistrate, and I can assure the Committee that it will indeed increase considerably the workload of magistrates' courts.
I fear that these provisions to compel parents to be responsible for their children's behaviour are in danger of being non-runners in the practical world in which judges, magistrates, probation officers and social workers have to work. We all agree in theory that parents should be made responsible for their children's behaviour. Indeed, for some parents of means who conspicuously refuse to accept their responsibilities it may be that the law has a role to play. However, the overwhelming number of families with which the lower courts have to deal are not in that category. They are disorganised, disadvantaged and in many cases despairing. Very many are one-parent, inner city families where family ties are fragile and under constant pressure. No measures are more likely to put those ties under strain than these.
I should like to remind the Committee that, as has already been said, magistrates already have power to require parents to attend courts and can take other actions as necessary. But such power is used sparingly. We ought to ask ourselves why it
is used sparingly. Why do magistrates not make more use of that power? First, such action increases considerably the length of the proceedings, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. Secondly, it puts in even greater danger what may already be a fragile human relationship. Thirdly, the creation of such a grey area, though perhaps not altogether unwelcome in some legal circles, will increase uncertainty, and uncertainty is bad law.
So far as concerns the provisions of the Bill I accept that benches will have the power to proceed or not according to the defendant's circumstances and that no recognisance will be surrendered or fines imposed on parents without means. That was patiently and courteously made plain to me by the noble Earl the Minister in correspondence. However, I suspect that the majority will be people without means. So why are we going through all this emotional turmoil with no tangible and measurable end product in view and when the operation of such clauses will undoubtedly in some cases result in children leaving home—let us be quite frank about this: it will—or parents cutting themselves off from children in trouble who desperately need such a link?
We all deplore the collapse of responsible parenthood in modern society. Some, though perhaps not enough, deplore adultery as well. However, provisions against that in a Criminal Justice Bill would not, I suspect, get very far. The fact is that to legislate against social behaviour and certain aspects of the moral condition is fraught with dangers, apart from, as in this case, being rather like trying to put your little finger into a sluice gate to stop the flow of water.

115
Times change and people's perceptions of their moral obligations change with them. More could and should be done in the area of education for parenthood, and the courts must continue to exercise sympathetic and helpful control in that area. But that is the way forward. I have yet to speak to a magistrate or a probation officer who believes that the proposals will bring anything but heartache and muddle and that they will in effect be largely unworkable.
Lord Hylton: A great deal has been said about the amendments. I should like to support the general thrust of both of them and underline what my noble friend said about disorganised families. There is plenty of evidence to show that the majority of children and young people who come before the courts come from disorganised backgrounds.
That evidence takes many forms. The relationship between the parents may be rocky or non-existent or they may be totally separated or divorced. The relationship between the parents and the young person may be damaged and non-functioning in varying degrees. It is highly probable that the child or young person will have failed to get the benefit from education and schooling which one would normally have expected. There is a great deal of probation evidence on that point. By the time one reaches the point of a conviction—perhaps even a first conviction—the situation has probably gone too far and the intervention of the court will come too late. I ask the Government to think again on those grounds.
Earl Ferrers: Many points of anxiety have been raised this evening and I quite understand them. I see that the provision may well cause distress, concern and sorrow in various cases, but we must look back and think, what is the reason for the provision? The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked who thought of the idea. I disclaim personal responsibility, but the Government have considered the idea for this very reason: we have all been concerned over the years at the increasing number of crimes, including crimes of violence and theft from property and people. It is a pretty amazing fact that the peak offending age is in the teens.
Too often people have said, "What are we going to do? Nothing has been done. The youth was taken to court and nothing happened". Parents have often seen their children go to court and said, "That's little Tommy, it's his responsibility. It's nothing to do with me". Parents have a responsibility to look after their children. As I said earlier, the proposal was considered desirable, not to punish the parents, but to inculcate a little more responsibility on the part of parents for what their children, many of whom are in their teens, do. It is not always good enough for parents to say, "That's what little Tommy has done. It's up to him. It's nothing to do with me". Parents have a responsibility and, if they do not have it, they should have.
That is the background to the proposal. We hope that such a provision will encourage parents to take care and notice of what their children do, not just from a moral point of view, but because children's actions
116
affect other people, perhaps offensively and harmfully. It is always possible to take a case at the far end of the spectrum and say, "What about the single-parent family living at the top of a block of flats in Brixton who has a hulking great youth of 15 and cannot do anything about it?". Of course there are cases like that.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether people who are bound over and forced to forgo their recognisance can appeal against the decision and obtain legal aid. In principle, they can obtain legal aid. The legislation allows it and it is for the magistrates to decide. In all the binding over provisions they will always exercise their powers unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so. The court will take into account the points that have been considered this evening as part of the reason for deciding whether the parents should be bound over.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, say that that will clog up the courts. I have no doubt that if a lot of cases came before the courts it would add to the work of the courts. Whether or not it would clog them up is a matter for speculation. One thing which clogs up the courts is a lot of offenders committing offences where at the moment there appears to be very little responsibility. I will not deny that this would add to the work of the courts, but if we are not prepared to go along this sort of track, to a certain extent we are washing our hands of part of the problem. Both amendments would remove from the Bill the duty which Clause 49 places on the court to bind over the parent or guardian of an offender aged 10 to 15, unless it would be unreasonable to do so. In place of that duty the court would simply have a power to bind over parents and guardians to take proper care and exercise proper control over offenders aged 10 to 17. I think that would weaken the provision in Clause 9. We are not saying that the parents of an offender under 16 must be bound over in every case, but we are changing the presumption. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not like the change in presumption, but at present parents will be bound over only if there is a specific reason to do so in the case in question. Therefore, the presumption is against binding over. We think the presumption should be in favour of it.
In cases involving offenders aged under 16 the Bill requires the court to bind over a parent or guardian unless that would be unreasonable in the case in question. Children and young persons under 16 cannot be expected to take full responsibility for their actions. Their parents should, and in most cases do, exercise some influence over their behaviour. Parents and guardians have an important role to play in teaching their children to know the difference between right and wrong and to respect other people and their property. As we all know only too well, if they neglect their responsibilities their children may well fall into crime. If that happens the courts should in our view bring home to parents or guardians in a real way the consequences of their neglect. The prospect of being bound over should encourage them to take a greater interest in what their children do.

117
Responsible parents have nothing to fear from these provisions. Nor does Clause 49(1) pose a threat to those simply unable to exercise proper care and control - for example, if they are in hospital - since it does no: require courts to exercise the power to bind over if would be unreasonable to do so. We are not requiring the courts to exercise their binding over powers in cases involving offenders aged 16 to 17. It will be rip to the discretion of the courts to do so. Those young people are at an intermediate stage between childhood and adulthood. Some will be mature enough to take responsibility for their actions, others will not. I agree with the amendment to leave the courts with a discretion in those cases.
For offenders under 16, we believe the courts' powers need to be strengthened in the way suggested so that the presumption is changed from being against binding over to being in favour of it.
Those are the reasons that we have included these clauses ill the Bill, and I do not think it unreasonable, particularly in view of the amount of concern expressed over offending by young people.
Lord Richard: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him two points. He is not strengthening the powers of the courts at all. He is not even altering the powers of the courts. He is telling the courts the way in which they must exercise those powers. That is entirely different.
The courts already have powers to bind over, as he knows. The presumption now is that one binds over "unless", which is a totally different situation from the present one. Let me put to him the fact that in 1989 40,300 juveniles were convicted of offences. If there is a similar figure for 1990 and 1991, how many binding over orders does the noble Earl think will be made when the presumption is now in favour of making them unless it is unreasonable to do so? We are talking in terms of tens of thousands of binding overs. If the noble Earl believes that the courts can cope with that situation without any undue difficulty, I can only say that he does not know much about the way in which the courts work.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I return to a point that I made earlier. What exactly do the Government believe will happen to a family in a deep sense of crisis following a child of that family getting into trouble with the police? Do they not recognise that in many underprivileged households, and possibly others too, the likelihood is that some of those children will be expelled by their parents from their homes. It is sheer humbug for Ministers to go around saying that they believe that theirs is the party of the family when they are prepared to contemplate an absurdity of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has rightly said that the implications for the courts are massive if that particular requirement is to be followed, as I suspect it will be in a substantial number of cases.
The question asked by my noble friend was: who exactly is in favour of this measure? It is quite obvious that no o le in this Committee, apart from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is in favour of it. We have still to hear from anyone who is prepared to stand up and say that this is an admirable idea. Not a single voice has
118
been heard in favour of this proposition. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is about to rescue the Minister from his position. Up to now he has said nothing, but I welcome his intervention.
Lord Elton: I rise with great diffidence. I do not believe in joining in debates of which one has not heard the beginning or in which the temperature has risen to such a level that one would have wished to have spoken before.
I must point out that two years ago I chaired the inquiry into discipline in schools. Among teachers there was a real concern to find some means of involving the aid of parents in the management of the behaviour of their children when they were in the school and away from home. I do not say that teachers ask for this measure; nor will I analyse it in detail since that has already been done, although I see that there is an escape clause for courts where it would be unreasonable to exercise the power which they are otherwise required to exercise on children under 16. But having heard the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, say that not a word has been spoken in favour of the measure, I believe that it would be unjust not to reply that there are some people who are concerned with children who want something like it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Can the noble Lord, who has very great experience in this area, explain to the Committee why every single organisation involved in these matters is against this measure, and profoundly against it? We have not heard from the Minister, although he was invited to give the Government's view. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would have a view as to why every single organisation is against this idea. There must be some reason for it.
Lord Hylton: In partial reply at any rate to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not the answer to the problem that he was raising a very much greater expansion of parent-teacher groups and associations? That is the classic kind of instrument in this type of case, particularly in the inner city and places where such things do not normally happen very much. To carry that point a little further, surely we need the kind of mutual support groups between parents which my noble friend Lord Henderson advocated a little earlier rather than this attempt to legislate and impose new duties on the courts.
Lord Elton: I was not embarking on advocacy; I was stating a fact. Perhaps I should state it more clearly. The committee over which I presided asked the Government to look into the possibility of making parents responsible—I believe that "vicariously" was the word that we used—for certain kinds of behaviour in school. We asked them to consider the matter. Whether or not this provision is the result of that request, I do not know. I do not believe that I ought to analyse what is needed for the reform of our schools at this time of night, a subject on which I could speak happily for an hour and a half.
Baroness Seear: My noble friend Lord Harris was in the middle of a sentence when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, intervened. He might at least be allowed to finish his sentence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend, as always, is extremely generous. I was coming to the conclusion of my remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was not quite so much help to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as I suspected that he might be. He told us that under his chairmanship teachers had been worried about the matter, in particular in schools. I am sure we all share their concern.
The question before us is wholly different. Those Members of the Committee who have been present throughout the debate have noticed that no one has risen to support the proposals of the noble Earl. That is not altogether surprising given the fact that not a single organisation in the criminal justice area has done other than oppose the Government's proposals. Who knows the problems associated with crimes by juveniles? The Magistrates' Association and the justices' clerks are firmly opposed to what the Government propose. We have asked the Government—unhappily, we have not so far received a response—what organisation they can name which wants this provision? Is there a single organisation? I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, owes us some explanation on that.
Such a provision, which has the potential to create massive problems for the courts, and can lead to a situation where almost inevitably children will be expelled from their own homes by their parents, could hardly do more damage to family life.
Lord Mottistone: We were debating my Amendment No. 93. Noble Lords have talked for far too long on the subject. It is quite simple. I do not believe that the Government have given us a satisfactory answer. However, I do not think that it is so important as to be dealt with at this stage of the business of the House. As noble Lords have made clear, the issue affects the courts, and how they view the matter. The ordinary person who will be affected by the provision by being bound over will not read the legislation, nor understand it if he does, in particular when one considers the convoluted way in which the relevant subsection is written. It will make no difference to him.
I suspect that it is gross exaggeration to say that it will make extra work for the courts. I believe that the courts, as usual, will act sensibly and take advantage of the escape part of the clause. However, I believe that the Government are unwise to persist in their view that this will make any difference to the juvenile delinquency situation. It is probably a mistake to be quite so persevering.
In my view the best course is to bring the matter back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 34, line 14, leave out from second ("by") to ("and") and insert ("which he is sentenced for that offence").
The noble Earl said: I speak also to Amendment No. 94A. Clause 49 places a duty on the court to bind over the parent of an offender under the age of 16 in every case except where the circumstances of that case mean that it would be unreasonable to do so. Where the offender is 16 or 17, the courts are not required to bind over the parents but they have a power to do so where they consider this appropriate.
Clause 49 allows the courts to bind over parents for up to three years. During such a period family circumstances may change. For example, it is possible that a child whose parents are bound over when he or she is 14 or 15 and still at school may leave school, get married and leave home before a bind-over period of this length has ended. To allow for such changes in circumstances Amendment No. 94A provides the courts with a power to revoke or vary an order binding over a parent if it would be in the interests of justice to do so. The parent or guardian must make an application to the court, and the court must be satisfied that there is a real and relevant change of circumstances. This is I believe a useful addition to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, for drawing my attention to the need for such a provision.
Amendment No. 93A is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 94:
Page 34, line 14, leave out from ("convicted") to end of line 18.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has been debated but I am not happy about the situation. I shall not move the amendment but bring it forward at the next stage.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 35, line 4, at end insert:
("(8) A court may vary or revoke an order made by it under this section if, on the application of the parent or guardian, it appears to the court, having regard to any change in the circumstances since the order was made, to be in the interests of justice to do so.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 94B:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Remands and committals to local authority accommodation
("—(1) For section 23 of the 1969 Act there shall be substituted the following section—
"Remands and committals to local authority accommodation.
23.—(1) Where—

(a) a court remands a child or young person charged with or convicted of one or more offences or commits him for trial or sentence; and

(b) he is not released on bail,

the remand or committal shall be to local authority accommodation; and in the following provisions of this

121
section, any reference (however expressed) to a remand shall be construed as including a reference to a co remittal.
(2) A court remanding a person to local authority accommodation shall designate the local authority who arc to receive him; and that authority shall be—

(a) in the case of a person who is being looked after by a local authority, that authority; and

(b) in any other case, the local authority in whose area it appears to the court that he resides or the offence or one of the offences was committed.

(3) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, it shall be lawful for any person acting on behalf of the designated authority to detain him.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, a court remanding a person to local authority accommodation may, after consultation with the designated authority, require that authority to comply with a security requirement, that is to say, a requirement that the person in question be placed and kept in secure accommodation.
(5) A court shall not impose a security requirement except in respect of a young person who has attained the age of fifteen, and then only if—

(a) he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or

(b) he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation, and is charged with or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while he was so remanded,

and (in either case) the court is of opinion that only such a requirement would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him.
(6) Where a court imposes a security requirement in respect of a person, it shall be its duty—

(a) to state in open court that it is of such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (5) above; and

(b) to explain to him in open court and in ordinary language why it is of that opinion;

and a magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated by it under paragraph (b) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
(7) A court remanding a person to local authority accommodation without imposing a security requirement may, after consultation with the designated authority, require that person to comply with any such conditions as could be imposed under section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976 if he were then being granted bail.
(8) Where a court imposes on a person any such conditions as are mentioned in subsection (7) above, it shall be its duty to explain to him in open court and in ordinary language why it is imposing those conditions; and a magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated by it under this subsection to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
(9) A court remanding a person to local authority accommodation without imposing a security requirement may, after consultation with the designated authority, impose on that authority requirements—

(a) for securing compliance with any conditions imposed on that person under subsection (7) above; or

(b) stipulating that he shall not be placed with a named person.

(10) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court—

(a) may, on the application of the designated authority, impose on that person any such conditions as could be imposed under subsection (7) above if the court were then remanding him to such accommodation; and

(b)where it does so, may impose on that authority any requirements for securing compliance with the conditions so imposed.

(11) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated authority or that person, vary or revoke any conditions or requirements imposed under subsection (7), (9) or (10) above.
(12) In this section—
'court' and 'magistrates' court' include a justice;
'imprisonable offence' means an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment;
'relevant court', in relation to a person remanded to local authority accommodation, means the court by which he was so remanded, or any magistrates' court having jurisdiction in the place where he is for the time being;
'secure accommodation' means accommodation which is provided in a community home for the purpose of restricting liberty, and is approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State;
'sexual offence' and 'violent offence' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
'young person' means a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years.
(13) In this section—

(a) any reference to a person who is being looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 22 of the Children Act 1989;

(b) any reference to consultation shall be construed as a reference to such consultation (if any) as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case; and

(c) any reference, in relation to a person charged with or 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.

(14) This section has effect subject to—

(a) section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal to the Crown Court with a view to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution); and

(b) section 128(7) of that Act (remands to the custody of a constable for periods of not more than three days),

but section 128(7) shall have effect in relation to a child or young person as if for the reference to three clear days there were substituted a reference to twenty-four hours."
(2) In section 37 of the 1980 Act (committal of young person to Crown Court for sentence)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "17 years old" there shall be substituted the words "18 years old";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "A person committed in custody under subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "Where a person committed in custody under subsection (1) above is not less than 17 years old, he"; and

(c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) Where a person committed in custody under subsection (1) above is less than 17 years old—

(a) he shall be committed to local authority accommodation; and

(b) the court by which he is so committed shall impose a security requirement within the meaning of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969." ").

The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 94C, 94D, 95BA, 95BB, 95BC and 104BA. I apologise for the length of the amendments and the fact that they were not tabled earlier. They

123
fulfil our commitment to improve the statutory arrangements for the remand of alleged offenders who are under the age of 17. I hope that meets with the approval of the Committee.
It has long been recognised that the present arrangements have serious shortcomings. The procedures are complex and confusing. They can lead to unsuitable decisions being made; but, more importantly, they rely on the use of adult prisons for remanded young people who need to be securely held. Despite the best efforts of the prison service, adult prisons are not satisfactory places in which to hold unconvicted 15 and 16 year-old boys. That was proved by the distressing suicide of one such 15 year-old in Swansea prison last summer. The provisions in the amendments before the Committee would mean that the courts would no longer have to rely on using adult prisons for these young people.
In February my right honourable friend the Home Secretary published the consultation paper setting out detailed proposals for reforming the juvenile remand arrangements. The principal objective was to end prison remands for juvenile defendants. We received more than 100 sets of comments on the consultation paper. Almost without exception they warmly welcomed the proposal to end juvenile remands in prison. Views on the other detailed proposals were mixed, but overall the Government's objective of improving the juvenile remand arrangements was supported. The Government have weighed carefully the response to the consultation paper. These amendments give effect to the proposals in the paper taking account, as far as they have been able to do so, of the comments received.
With that brief explanation and considering the hour of the night, I beg to move.
Lord Richard: Grouped with this series of amendments are Amendments Nos. 95ZC and 95ZD standing in my name. It may surprise the noble Earl, but I congratulate the Government on coming forward in this amendment with what we regard as a welcome and substantial step towards eliminating what up to now has been a blot on the reputation of British justice.
Having said that, I am afraid I cannot go much further in congratulating the Government. The need is to see a complete end to the remand of juveniles to adult prisons and remand centres. While the Government are committed to ending juvenile remands in custody eventually, they have not yet committed themselves to a timetable for doing so. They have said that they will end such remands when sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available but have not announced a specific timetable for bringing that about.
In February the Home Office issued a consultation paper on the subject entitled The Remand of Alleged Juvenile Offenders. It proposed to restrict custodial remands in the short term on the lines of these amendments; to establish between 30 and 35 more secure places (that is, beds and not establishments) for
124
juveniles in local authority homes over the next four years; and to review the position—not necessarily to end juvenile remands in custody—in four years' time.
What is the scope of the problem with which we are faced? As I understand it, in the 12 months to the end of June 1990, 1,300 boys aged 15 and 16 were remanded to prisons and remand centres. The remanding in custody of girls under 17 ended in 1979, so we are not faced with that problem. The number of juveniles on remand in penal establishments at any one time is much smaller than 1,300. On 30th April 1990, 65 untried and 19 convicted but not yet sentenced boys under the age of 17 were in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales. With numbers of that size surely it should be possible to plan a strategy to end such remands completely much more rapidly than is currently envisaged.
I do not believe that I need to emphasise the difficulties which have arisen and the disturbing aspects of the number of juveniles who continue to be held in penal establishments. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has done that with great force.
At present central government are meeting the revenue costs of keeping juveniles in prison. The London Boroughs Association has contacted me on this matter. It believes that the Government should reimburse local authorities for at least part—and it suggests 75 per cent.—of the revenue costs provided for any 15 or 16 year-old boy who is to be remanded to local authority accommodation as a result of these clauses. If that is not done, I gather that the costs will be very burdensome for local authorities.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I understand the situation, the Home Office estimate is that in terms of the amount of secure accommodation available we are talking about another 30 to 35 places. The London Boroughs Association says that that is an underestimate because there is already a serious shortage in London.
Perhaps I may refer the noble Earl to a Written Answer which I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on 20th December last year. It is important to remember the figure of 30 to 35 extra places. On 1st January 1980 there were 329 secure places in England. On 1st January of last year there were 294 secure places. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that that is a fall of 35 places. If those figures are correct, as I am sure they are, we are being told by the Government that it will take three or four years to get back to the situation which we were in 10 or 11 years ago. That is not a very impressive record.
If we consider the boroughs which have cut back on their provision of secure places, we find one interesting example: the London Borough of Wandsworth. That is a borough we are constantly told we should look to and respect for its remarkable record of local authority administration. In January 1980 it had 28 secure places; now it has none. In other words, very nearly the whole of the extra resources that the Government will have to find in regard to secure accommodation is explicable by the cut-back in the London Borough of Wandsworth. That is indeed a remarkable record.

125
Perhaps I may add a further point. Those of us who visit prisons regularly are depressed on each occasion by the substantial number of children we see in remand accommodation. It is obvious that if we do not have adequate secure accommodation available, as far as local authorities are concerned children will continue to go to prison. That is inevitable given that the Government have not agreed any clear timetable for getting them out of prison.
All I say to the noble Earl is that we expect the Government to discuss the matter realistically with the local authority associations, bearing in mind that some of the local authorities which will be required to provide the additional accommodation are already capped The difficulties in that regard will be formidable indeed.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may reinforce what has already been said by many noble Lords. I received a huge document from the Association of Directors of Social Services covering the whole of England and Wales. The Association of Directors of Social Services is in deep trouble. On the one hand it supports the Government in not wanting to send children to prison on remand; on the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of Greenwich, mentioned, it simply does not have the money to set up the secure accommodation required. If that is to be done, the funds will need to be ring-fenced.
I turn to my second point. In the halcyon days gone by I had a splendid remand home run by extremely good people. A number of those children were so treated in that remand home that when they came before the courts they were not sent to a penal institution because they had been so helped on a welfare basis in the remand home. It is a real dilemma for the Association of Directors of Social Services. It does not want children to go to prison; yet it does not have the money to set up secure accommodation throughout the country.
Baroness Seear: I believe that this is the best place—though perhaps not totally appropriate—to raise an issue in regard to young offenders since this clause discusses issues concerning them. The issue involves the rehabilitation of the young offender. I understand that the matter was raised in another place and the Minister said that he was giving the matter attention. However, it seems appropriate that it should also be considered in this Chamber.
Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, offences of a less serious kind are regarded as spent after a period of 10 years. The offender does not have to admit to any offence in any sphere in which he finds himself, but most importantly, in applying for jobs. People specifically concerned with the question of the young offender suggest that, since so many offences are committed between the ages of 15 and 22 and after that very often young people settle down and offending becomes a thing of the past, it would be extremely helpful if, to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, could be added a clause to allow for the offence to be spent in a shorter period of years—perhaps three or four. It would then be more possible for the young offender to obtain employment.
126
Hideous examples exist of the experience of young offenders when they have completed a period in prison. In one case a young man applied for 89 jobs; he secured none and went back into crime. The ability to have an offence spent, and therefore greatly to enhance the opportunity of getting a job, would surely be a very valuable way of cutting down on the continuation of offences among young persons. I very much hope that the Minister will give this matter very careful consideration.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: I wish to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The concept of sending juveniles and children to prison is entirely abhorrent. I hope that my noble friend recognises the enthusiasm with which we support the amendment and with which we press him to ensure that it will be used on every possible occasion until no juvenile is ever sent to prison.
Earl Ferrers: I recognise the concern which my noble friend has referred to. We do not want to see children and young people going to prison. We shall have gradually to find ways of avoiding that. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to young offenders. The point that she made is very real. The example that she gave is a very graphic one. She spoke of a person who has his conviction not spent then tries to find a job but cannot, as a result of which he goes back into crime. We shall certainly take these matters into account. All Members of the Committee are concerned about that situation and about what we are trying to do about secure accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, and a number of other Members of the Committee, asked about that provision. The proposals that we have put forward have important resource implications. Work on the resources will be an important part of what has to be done as we take these proposals forward. Officials have already had discussions with the local authority associations. Prison remands can only be abolished when enough secure accommodation is available. There will be a need for new building, which takes time to plan and complete. We intend later to review what has been achieved and what more needs to be done. There are now about 300 places in secure accommodation which are used mainly for difficult and disturbed juveniles in care. The consultation paper estimates a need for between 30 to 35 extra places by 1995.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to a Written Answer which he received from my noble friend Lady Hooper about a decline in the number of places. Part of the answer lies in Amendment No. 94C, which introduces the second new clause. For the first time it puts a duty on local authorities to provide enough secure accommodation. The costs are funded 100 per cent. by central government. That will provide a solid basis for building up the number of places to meet the demand. I realise that it will not be done overnight. In the general course of events these provisions are not created as quickly as one would wish. I can assure the Committee that it is the intention of the Government

127
to do the best they can to provide sufficient secure accommodation in order to keep the persons in question out of the prison system.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 94C:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Provision by local authorities of secure accommodation
("—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to secure that they are in a position to comply with any security requirement which may be imposed on them under—

(a) section 23(4) of the 1969 Act (remands and committals to local authority accommodation); or

(b) section 37(3) of the 1980 Act (committal of young person to Crown Court for sentence).

(2) A local authority may discharge their duty under subsection (1) above either by providing secure accommodation themselves or by making arrangements with other local authorities for the provision by them of such accommodation.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the co-operation required of local authorities in the provision of secure accommodation.
(4) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) In this section expressions used in section 23 of the 1969 Act have the same meanings as in that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 94D:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation
("—(1) In relation to any time before such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) (1) above shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) In subsection (1), immediately before the words "the remand" there shall be inserted the words "then, unless he is declared by the court, after consultation with a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department, to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies".
(3) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) Where a court declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) below applies, it shall remand him—

(a) to a remand centre, if it has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception from the court of such persons; and

(b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified.

(5) This subsection applies to a young person who is male and has attained the age of fifteen, but only if—

(a) he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or

(b) he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation, and is charged with or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while he was so remanded,

and (in either case) the court is of opinion that only remanding him to a remand centre or prison would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."
(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) for the words "imposes a security requirement in respect of a young person" there shall be substituted the words "declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) above applies"; and

(b) for the words "subsection (5) above" there shall be substituted the words "that subsection".

(5) In subsections (7) and (9), the words "without imposing a security requirement" shall be omitted.
(6) After subsection (9) there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(9A) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated authority, declare him to be a person to whom subsection (5) above applies; and on its doing so, he shall cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (4) above shall apply."
(7) In subsection (12), the definition of "secure accommodation" shall he omitted.").
On Question, amendment 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 twenty-one minutes past eleven o'clock.

  REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT
  REVENUE SUPPORT GRANT