Sitting of 20 February 1991

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  MIDLAND METRO (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Tinplate
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the latest figures for the output of tinplate in Wales and Great Britain, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The average monthly output of tinplate in the first five months of 1990 was 72,000 tonnes. All British production of tinplate is based in Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware of the importance to Wales of the tinplate industry, which in its heyday employed some 7,000 people. In view of the loss of jobs at Velindre, will he give an assurance that there is now certainty for the future of that industry? As £120 million worth of tinplate is to be imported into Britain this year, will the Minister examine the matter to see how we can maximise our own output and the jobs that depend on it?
    Mr. Leigh: As the hon. Gentleman may know, there has been a very gradual decline in the production of tinplate due to competition from aluminium. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question, now that British Steel is privatised, profitable and successful, I do not think that it is down to a Department of Trade and Industry Minister to comment in detail on the company's commercial operations and I have no intention of doing so.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that British Steel is already one of the most positive examples of the benefits of privatisation? In 1979–80 it lost £1·7 billion, but in the past year it made a profit of £700 million. That example is being followed with interest throughout the world and one can only hope that it will be followed with interest and understanding by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Leigh: I fear that my hon. Friend will receive no reassurance from Opposition Members, who still seem not to accept the benefits that have accrued to British Steel as a result of privatisation. The whole world knows that we have one of the most successful and profitable steel companies in the world and we at the DTI intend to leave it well alone.
    Dr. Reid: Would the Minister like to make that claim to the 370 employees at the Ravenscraig hot strip mill who lost their jobs last week, the 400 workers at Ravenscraig who will lose their jobs at the end of the month, the 1,200 people at the Clydesdale tube works who face the sack within the next three months or the 3,500 and the rest at Ravenscraig and the 2,000 connected with them who are liable to lose their jobs? How can he possibly regard a company that throws away the most productive steel plant in Britain and, indeed, in Europe as a shining example to the rest of British industry?
    Mr. Leigh: As regards Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that certain undertakings were given to the Government by British Steel, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing that matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's general points about British Steel, we return as always to the original fact that in 1979 the industry was making a loss of £1 billion and now it is making a profit of £600 million.

    Capital Adequacy
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the progress being made by his Department in negotiating the capital adequacy revised directive with our EC counterparts in the Trade and Industry Council.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): In June 1990 the Commission tabled a proposal on capital adequacy. More recently, it tabled a position paper on equity risk and interest rate risk. We are negotiating on those proposals together. I am consulting widely with the industry concerned and we wish to see the principle established that capital should be related to the risks being run.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and wish him well in the work on the revised draft text. Is he now confident that that will give a level playing field, a single-market basis and a fair opportunity for competition by British financial intermediaries?
    Mr. Redwood: No, I am not yet fully satisfied on that point. A number of issues relating to independent financial advisers still need to be discussed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I am pleased that the Commission is now a partner and is listening carefully to our argument that IFAs should be distinguished by the amount of risk being run, that different levels of capital should apply to them and that in some cases exemptions should apply to them. I should like to see rather more exemptions than are currently proposed, but getting agreement on that will obviously be difficult as it involves a qualified majority vote.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister tell his Common Market counterparts that in the jungle of the City of London it would be a good idea to learn some lessons from the

    259
    swindle at Harrods, the Blue Arrow fiasco and all the rest of the City frauds'? They will certainly not achieve a level playing field like that.
    Mr. Redwood: It is typical of the Opposition always to try to run down the City of London and this country's financial services. It is high time that the Opposition got behind those services and realised that they create hundreds of thousands of jobs and do a very good job for this country in Europe.
    Mr. Michael Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed capital adequacy requirements as they stand, could all too easily restrict choice, reduce competition and thus damage the interests of the financial consumers whom they are intended to assist?
    Mr. Redwood: I have already said that the United Kingdom Government wish to see capital related directly to risk. If we succeed in that, my hon. Friend's fears will be confounded. I accept his intention and that we still need to make more progress over the definition of categories for various types of independent financial adviser. One of my main objectives is to try to avoid independent financial advisers being squeezed by European directives.

    Northern Development Company
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to meet the board of the Northern Development Company to discuss the company's business plan for 1991–92.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I have no present plans to meet the board of the Northern Development Company. Its plans and grant application for its inward investment activities for 1991–92 are currently being given careful consideration, along with those of the other four regional development organisations. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs will be announcing the level of grant for all the regional development organisations in early March.
    Mr. Cousins: The Secretary of State will know that the Northern Development Company was created by people in the north to promote inward investment. Given the spirit of his speech yesterday, does he now regard it as a fully fledged regional development agency and, if so, will he give it the resources to promote inward investment from the south into the north so that, as the puff of credit which floated to the south sinks, people can move to the north where opportunity is greater and life is better?
    Mr. Lilley: The Northern Development Company is doing an excellent job. It has a good record of attracting companies into the north-east—about 31,000 jobs have been created by inward investment in the north-east and the northern region—and it will receive the largest grant of any of the regional development organisations.
    Mr. Trotter: As the Northern Development Company has all-party support, is a bright example of success in the north-east in terms of its economic promotion and has contributed significantly to the resilience of our region, will my right hon. Friend therefore maximise support for its future and for that success?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do so. As I have said, the company will receive the largest grant of all the regional development organisations. It has an excellent record. In addition, English Estates is planning 600,000 sq ft of extra factory space in the region.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there has never been a more important time than right now to reverse the Government's damaging industrial strategy in the northern region? Why do the Government not reopen the door that they so firmly locked in 1979 when Labour left office and restore to our region the levels of industrial assistance that were available at that time, which brought tens of thousands of jobs to the north of England?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should ask his own Front Bench. As I understand it, his right hon. and hon. Friends have no intention of restoring regional development grants. If they have, they had better tell us where they intend to get the money from.

    Tax Burden
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the tax burden, including employers' social security contributions and payroll taxes, on British, French and west German companies, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Lilley: In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, direct taxes on corporations and employers' payroll social security contributions were 8·9 per cent. of gross national product in the United Kingdom; 10·5 per cent. in west Germany and 17·2 per cent. in France.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those gratifying figures go some way to explaining why business investment in the United Kingdom since 1979 has been higher than in either France or Germany? Does he further agree that we must keep those burdens down and reduce them further if we are to have continuing long-term investment in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lower burden on taxation on industry in Britain goes a long way to explaining why we have three times as much inward investment as France and six times as much as Germany. I cannot pre-empt the Budget judgments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I agree that it is important to keep the burden of tax low. We remember all too well that the Labour party voted against a reduction in the corporation tax rate.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that many industrialists complain justifiably about the amount of bureaucracy involved in collecting the taxes that they pay? Does he believe that we should make progress towards a unified tax and benefits system? Does he also agree that the reintroduction of enhanced capital allowances would enable industry to invest in itself in a more useful way?
    Mr. Lilley: The Government considered in the 1988 Green Paper the unification of taxation and social security benefits and concluded that it simply was not feasible

    261
    because the two were on different time scales and had different purposes. It would make the bureaucracy far worse if we unified taxation and social security benefits.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most tedious tax burdens on very small firms is the absurdly low level at which they become responsible for value added tax? Will he continue, perhaps in conjuction with his colleagues and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make representations to the European Community to raise the level?
    Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. We have consistently argued with the EC that we should be allowed to raise the level further. We have set the level as high as possible under Community law, but there is a proposal in the works that would raise the level higher. That proposal has been made basically on our initiative, but it is grinding exceeding slow.

    Furniture and Furnishings
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings meets the highest safety standards pertaining for British consumers.
    Mr. Leigh: The Commission has held three consultative meetings with member states about its proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. In these discussions we have made it clear to the Commission that the United Kingdom could not support any proposals that would reduce the level of fire safety provided in the United Kingdom by the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. This view was confirmed in a position paper sent to the Commission in September 1990 and reinforced in a bilateral meeting with the Commission last November.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister for that reply. The whole House will welcome the Government's opposition to attempts by our European partners to reduce fire safety standards to a level that will put us back 20 years. The House should understand that the Commission's proposals affect furnishings not only at home but in public places. Is the Minister prepared to meet the officers of the all-party home safety committee to discuss with them the need to inform the public and others that we are not prepared to see fire safety standards traded off by the Commission for the purposes of 1992? Will he welcome the reduction for the first time in 20 years in deaths from fires at home in Britain, which has been brought about by the new legislation?
    Mr. Leigh: I pay tribute to the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brings to these matters. We are aware of his deep interest in them. I fully agree with what he says. Of course, I shall meet any delegation. I take these matters seriously, not least because I am a father of young children. So long as I am the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, I shall fight any proposals that in any way weaken our regulations—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are some of the strongest in Europe.
    262
    Only today we issued a leaflet entitled "Making furniture safer" on the Department of Trade and Industry's lead in Europe in making furniture as safe as possible.
    Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of deaths in domestic fires, particularly among women and children, has dropped sharply in Britain since we introduced much stricter rules about the foams and fire retardant materials to be used in furniture? Does my hon. Friend accept that this is serious and that it is preposterous for the European Commissioner to suggest that there are no satisfactory tests which could be introduced? Why does not my hon. Friend simply show him what we do in Britain and how well it works?
    Mr. Leigh: That is precisely what we are doing in discussion with the European Commission. To set this matter in context, I should say that the proposals are at an early stage and the Commisison has not come back with any proposals to the Council. However, we are not satisfied with the way in which the proposals are drafted and we intend to toughen them up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, we have good, tough regulations and the number of deaths is coming down. We must keep up the good work.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does the Government leaflet published today not alert the public to the threat to British safety standards? Why has the Minister failed to support and defend British firms which have invested £20 million in developing safer foam products? Will he give an assurance that his Department will fight the disastrous draft directive and ensure that dangerous foam products which do not meet the highest British standards are stopped at Dover?
    Mr. Leigh: That is an absurd contribution, unlike those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Tens of thousands of copies of the leaflet have been issued and it relates to regulations on the statute book now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but I have already explained that the proposals from the Commission are at a draft stage and that we intend to resist them. To start talking about regulations that might or might not be made in the future and putting them in a leaflet going out to ordinary members of the public would be absolutely absurd.

    Monopolies and Mergers Commission
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is planning to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lilley: I have no plans to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Holt: Given the outstanding record of the DTI in the past few years—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing wrong with that.
    Mr. Holt: Given the DTI's outstanding record in the past few years on the Barlow Clowes affair, the Iraqi supergun affair and on the jewel in the crown, the MMC, and its fiasco over the brewers, its complete and utter

    263
    inexplicable decision on British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky and, latterly, its refusal to allow ICI to dispose of its fertiliser interest to Kemira, can my right hon. Friend say when he will start to listen less to the civil servants surrounding him, who know nothing, and take a little more interest in what is told to him by his friends on the Back Benches who represent the relevant areas?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is as vigorous a defender of the interests of his constituents as he is of my Department.I appreciate his concern about the MMC report and the possible effects on Cleveland Potash Limited in his constituency about which we have spoken. There is no certainty that, as a result of that report, ICI will close its plant and I very much hope that it will not. There is no certainty that ICI will be unable to find another buyer, should it decide to seek one, as I hope that it will. There is no certainty that if the Kemira sale had gone through, it would have safeguarded indefinitely the potash plant in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend should remember that there is almost no precedent, at least since 1982, for a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to turn down and fail to implement the recommendations of an MMC report of that kind.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister must be extremely worried about the mergers taking place, because they are just an excuse for asset stripping. I highlight the problem in Glasgow concerning the tobacco industry, which has created wealth in that city for many centuries. Imperial was taken over by Hanson. There were good industrial relations, a hard-working work force and profits in the industry, but the factory is to be closed down and the work taken to Bristol. The factory will then be sold off to the highest bidder and Hanson even has the cheek to intimate that he is looking for a grant from the Scottish Development Agency to do his dirty work.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was talking about a merger that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not allow to take place. It is right to have an organisation such as the MCC which uses competition as the principal criterion on which to decide whether a merger should or should not go ahead.
    Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is determined to draw even more closely to the attention of the MMC the real danger of nationalisation by the back door of companies in Britain when they are subject to the attentions of overseas companies that are either nationalised or semi-nationalised? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tough stand that he has taken so far and urge him to ensure that the MMC always has that principle firmly in mind.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I shall consider each case on its merits and take into account the degree of state ownership when considering whether to refer a proposed merger to the MMC. In the past few years, about a quarter of takeovers in this country have been by foreign, state-owned companies. Since I announced my decision, I believe that the rate has become lower.
    Mr. Beggs: If necessary, will the Secretary of State enlarge the MMC's brief to enable it to look into the unfairly low price paid for electricity put on the national
    264
    grid by those producing from small hydroelectric turbines? Many more economy sites could be developed throughout the United Kingdom if those who generate from hydroelectric turbines were awarded a fair price for the electricity that they generate.
    Mr. Lilley: I will certaintly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Northern Ireland.

    Financial Advisers
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to assist independent financial advisers in the EC.
    Mr. Redwood: My Department and I argue strongly for independent financial advisers in Europe, particularly in respect of the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive. We should like them to take advantage of the passports in that directive, but only if the capital requirements are sensible.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that independent financial advisers have a role to play in the single European market? Will he confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that such advisers can play such a role?
    Mr. Redwood: Yes, I hope that they will have a role to play. I should like it if they would have a passport, through the investment services directive, to carry out cross-border business, but that would depend on getting the right answer about capital, which is important to them.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the advisers have a role in explaining away the neglect by the present Government of the British film industry in Europe? Will they explain why the Government have reneged on their fairly miserable commitment to give £5 million to the European co-production fund? If that is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe, will the Minister accept that the advisers will have an almighty job to explain away the once-thriving British film industry?
    Mr. Redwood: That has nothing to do with the main question and is symptomatic of Opposition Members' attitude to the important issue of IFAs. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is not present today. She has been alleging in the press that FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—is in danger of becoming bankrupt. I hope that she will withdraw that allegation. Another way in which we are helping IFAs is to show the true financial position of FIMBRA, which told me yesterday that it now has net cash in the bank and a budget plan for next year which will mean that its costs will not be greater than its revenues if all goes according to plan. I hope that Opposition Members will concentrate on IFAs, the matter in hand, which have no role to play in the film industry.

    Acquisitions and Mergers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom companies of United Kingdom companies in each year from 1984 to 1989.
    Mr. Lilley: The value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom rose steadily from £5 billion to £27 billion between 1984 and 1989, I will publish the annual figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm his confidence in the takeover panel and takeover code, and acknowledge that there is concern in the City and elsewhere about the effect on the panel of the 13th draft EC directive, or whatever it is called, which substitutes a more legalistic approach for the highly pragmatic approach that we take in the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that he will make every endeavour to ensure that that EC beast is not foisted upon us?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is much concern in the United Kingdom about this. Our voluntary takeover panel works very well. The bulk of takeover activity occurs in this country, so we have a right to a major say in any legislation that will bear on the United Kingdom and we shall vigorously uphold British interests in discussions in Brussels. It is, however, a matter for majority voting, so we cannot be absolutely sure that we will get our way; but we have quite a good track record of persuading our partners of the rightness of our cause.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed in mergers is consistency, speed of determination and lack of duplication by Government agencies? Therefore, when the mergers directive is in place, will he prevent the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading from making any attempts at empire building?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree. The greatest possible simplicity, speed and certainty are important in these mergers. I shall take my hon. Friend's point into account.
    Following is the information:

    £ million

    1984

    5,474

    1985

    7,090

    1986

    15,370

    1987

    16,539

    1988

    22,836

    1989

    27,253

    Recession
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of the recession on industry in the north-west.
    Mr. Leigh: The defeat of inflation is the only sure way to achieve sustainable economic growth. Business in the north-west is well placed to weather the current downturn and to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the 1990s.
    Mr. Hoyle: That was a very complacent reply. In British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Rolls-Royce alone, 1,000 jobs will be lost; 30 per cent. of manufacturing industry has been destroyed by the Government since they came to office; one in three manufacturing jobs in the north-west has been lost; Lewis's, the retail giant, is going into bankruptcy; bankruptcies are running at record
    266
    levels; and investment is falling. Even though the Minister may have been a car-boot salesman in the past, will he visit the north-west, get out of his limousine and meet real people, who will explain the position there to him? Does he realise that they will tell him that it is time this fag-end Government of weary Willies and tired Tims resigned?
    Mr. Leigh: In that long litany the hon. Gentleman wholly failed, as one might expect, to give us any good news about his constituency. Perhaps I can help the good people of Warrington by announcing that recently, Digital Equipment Company, one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, revealed plans for a £20 million investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a pity that he does not speak up more for Warrington, where unemployment is below the national average. But it is not nearly as low as in Clitheroe, in the Ribble Valley constituency, where it is 2·8 per cent.
    Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the official figures for employment in the north-west show an increase of 60,000 in the past 18 months?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. We all know that there has been an increase in employment in the north-west, although we should see it in the context of the fact that more people are in work nationwide than ever before—and in all sectors of the economy. We should also recognise, as I said in my original answer, that the only way to get rid of unemployment in the long run and to ensure that British industry is competitive is to lick inflation. That is the purpose of our policies.
    Mr. Henderson: As 25,000 jobs have been lost in recent months in the textile industry, many of them in the north-west, and now that the GATT talks have been resumed and there is an understanding in Europe that no conclusion will be reached before July this year, by when the multi-fibre arrangement will have run out, will the Minister assure the House today that the Government will, without delay, discuss the multi-fibre arrangement at the Council of Ministers and seek its renewal after July, at least for an interim period until the GATT talks are concluded?
    Mr. Leigh: The arrangements will continue to the end of the year and there will be a transitional arrangement. It is particularly in the interests of industry, including industry in the north-west, that we obtain a settlement in the GATT negotiations and we intend to do so. If a settlement is achieved the considerable benefit to consumers has been calculated at about £1 billion.

    Business Investment
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on business investment.
    Mr. Redwood: Business investment grew by 8 per cent. in 1989 and by 43 per cent. over the three years to 1989. Since 1980 business investment in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any of our major industrial competitors except Japan.
    Mr. Wardle: If industry is to resume the record levels of investment achieved between 1987 and the middle of last year, is not it essential that the Government first defeat inflation?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that reducing inflation is very important to business confidence and investment. The House may like to remember that investment was running at well over £55 billion in 1989, compared with a level under the Labour Administration that never got anywhere near £40 billion in real terms.
    Mr. Haynes: Where was the Minister yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a marvellous speech at the Dispatch Box about trade and industry? It is a shocking state of affairs when we have a Minister standing at that Dispatch Box talking about how much the Government have invested in British industry when those Conservative organisations, the CBI and the chambers of commerce, do not agree with what he is saying. Will the Minister get up and tell us what he is going to do about it?
    Mr. Redwood: I was present for the first part of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Then I went off to make a speech to a group of business men and hear for myself what is happening in British business.
    The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked what we are going to do about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs made it clear: having a sound economic policy is vital to investment confidence.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult for a British company to compete against overseas companies in this country when it comes to investment? There are not enough offsets for the investor, who is tempted to leave his money on deposit rather than risk it. We need a fresh impetus from the Treasury to make sure that British investors will invest in this country.
    Mr. Redwood: In the early 1980s corporation tax was cut substantially and investment allowances were withdrawn. The result was a surge in investment, taking it to levels much higher than any achieved in the 1970s and early 1980s. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hears of my hon. Friend's ideas because he will regard them as important in the run-up to the Budget, although he will want to make his own decisions on that and other matters that come before him.
    Ms. Abbott: Do not current interest rate levels make it very difficult for business to invest? Should not Trade and Industry Ministers be pressing their colleagues in the Treasury to call for a realignment in the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Redwood: Interest rates and the level of the currency are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and have been exhaustively debated in the House.

    Credit
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure that customers are better informed about credit deals.
    Mr. Leigh: The Government's plans on this matter are described in the consultative document "Proposals for New Legislation on Credit Marketing", which was published in December.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I acknowledge that the Government cannot play nanny, nor can they always protect people from their own folly, but there are measures that we can and should take. Will the Minister comment on some of the techniques of inertia and cold selling which offer people all sorts of things on credit, using simple forms on which one must tick a little box if one does not want them? These are techniques which many simple people do not understand and which cause them to get themselves into unnecessary difficulties.
    Mr. Leigh: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we cannot be a nanny state, I think that a successful market is a well-informed one. Inertia selling is a matter of fine judgment because many of those boxes are designed, according to the people who provide credit services, to protect the consumer through insurance schemes; but I decided to prohibit inertia selling because it is wrong that someone should be required to undertake a contract without having positively requested so to do.

    Financial Services (Regulation)
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to alter the regulatory structure for the United Kingdom financial services sector.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend recently welcomed the statement of Sir David Walker and the publication of the new core rules. One of the most important recent changes in the regulatory system is that which encourages clear core rules and the minimum number of additional rules. My right hon. Friend also praised the wish of the regulatory bodies to concentrate compliance work on pursuing those cases that give most reason to cause suspicion. He has drawn attention to the efficacy of stressing disclosure rather than prescriptive rules. I am sure that the House will agree that these are welcome improvements in our system.
    Mr. Buckley: Are not the regulations full of loopholes and ambiguities which, from Barlow Clowes to the Levitt Group, have not fulfilled the necessary requirements of control? Did not the Government accept and recognise in the body of the text of the companies legislation in 1989 that some changes are needed in the regulations? Does the Minister accept that there should be two regulatory bodies and that there should be compulsory regulation rather than the present system?
    Mr. Redwood: That would mean the wholesale abolition of a large number of excellent regulatory bodies. The purpose of the self-regulatory system is to allow people, within defined limits, to make their own decisions about which body they wish to join and the conduct of the regulation in those bodies. I do not agree that the regulations are out of date or in need of wholesale reform in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he wishes to draw attention to particular loopholes or difficulties in the regulations, I or the regulatory bodies should be happy to look into them carefully. It is not fair to say that Barlow

    269
    Clowes demonstrated that the current regulatory system is ineffective because that problem developed before the enactment of the Financial Services Act.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that the financial sector does not lie only in the City of London? A great expansion in financial services has taken place in and around my constituency and my constituents need clear rules so that they can expand their businesses not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe.
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that the financial services sector extends widely geographically, as well as in terms of its range of service and products. He has my assurance that I shall do everything in my power to further the interests of those legitimate businesses here and in the European Community.

    West Yorkshire (Development)
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to visit West Yorkshire during the next three months to discuss industrial and regional development.
    Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.
    Mrs. Mahon: That is a disgraceful answer. Calderdale has lost 3,000 jobs in the past 12 months, most of them in manufacturing. We get no outside aid and one area in my constituency, Sowerby Bridge, has been particularly devastated by the Government's economic policies. We were promised help by another Department, but it pulled out at the last minute. Is not it time that the Government developed a regional policy to help towns such as mine which are suffering badly because of the Government's disastrous economic policies?
    Mr. Leigh: As one might expect, the hon. Lady does not give the whole picture about what is happening in Yorkshire. Perhaps she missed last week's Yorkshire Post, which I have here. It says:
    "Business confidence in Yorkshire, although falling, is more buoyant than anywhere else in the nation, the Confederation of British Industry claimed last night.
    The 'not having it quite as bad' evidence, backed up by yesterday's small cut in interest rates, bolstered beliefs that the region might be nearing the bottom of its recession."
    Unemployment in Calderdale has fallen by 5,000 in the past five years. The hon. Lady, who always strikes me as having the charm of a tricoteuse in the French revolution, should, for once, give the good news about Calderdale, which is well placed.
    Mrs. Peacock: When my hon. Friend visits West Yorkshire, as well as looking at what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned, will he examine some of the successful companies that have been investing, are investing and are planning to invest in the future?
    Mr. Leigh: Yes, of course. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) did not say that 20,000 new companies have set up in Yorkshire. She did not explain all the advantages that Yorkshire and Humberside have in the single market in attracting inward investment. She did not mention, in her strictures about regional policy, that in the current public expenditure survey round, we are planning to spend £600 million on regional policy.
    Ms. Quin: If the Minister decides to have discussions with people in West Yorkshire or elsewhere on regional policy, will he take the opportunity of disowning the views that he gave in the No Turning Back group publication on regional policy, in which he claimed that European regional policy and the European regional development fund served no purpose? Will he make it clear to the House that the views of that group are not the views of the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Mr. Leigh: There seem to be three phases in the life of a parliamentarian—angry young man, angry old man and Minister in the middle. As a Minister, I fully support Government policy.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Speaking as a member of the No Turning Back group to another member of the group, may I again draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Yorkshire Post from which he just quoted and refer him to its business section last Thursday where the headline was:
    "Yorkshire industry lifts its head above the gloom."
    May I draw his attention, for the occasion when he visits Yorkshire and Humberside, to an article referring to the growth in the docks industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside region which it says is a result of the removal of the restrictive practices that characterised the industry? Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the message is that Yorkshire and Humberside benefit every time restrictive practices are lifted?
    Mr. Leigh: I have to tell Opposition Members that I could hardly fail to visit Yorkshire and Humberside. I do so every Saturday when I go across the Humber bridge to do my shopping in one of the supermarkets of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speaks out well for Humberside. He led the fight for the port and we congratulate him.

    CBI
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the CBI to discuss the condition of industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives of the CBI. He met the director general most recently last week.
    Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, will he discuss with it the latest manufacturing output figures which, as I understand it, show that the value of manufacturing output has declined by some £5 billion and that the level of investment has decreased by 15 per cent? Will he also discuss with the CBI the GDP figures published today which show that, officially, we are in recession? If the Department can bring itself to acknowledge that we are in recession, will the Minister tell us what precisely he proposes to do to get industry out of that recession?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may agree that, as the songwriter might have put it, recession is among industry's unfavourite things. I remind him and the House of some other unfavourite things of industry: excessive trade union power, high rates of business taxation, too much Government interference and continuing high rates of inflation. Those are the things which characterise Labour Governments and make them very unfavourite among business men.
    Mr. Knox: When the Secretary of State next meets the president of the CBI, will he discuss with him the fact that manufacturing output last December was 4 per cent. higher than in December 1973—a period of 17 years? Does my hon. Friend believe that that represents satisfactory progress?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Manufacturing output in the 1980s grew faster than in Germany, France or Italy. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should look at the underlying strength of manufacturing industry and at the underlying strength of British industry. The massive strides and great improvements that we made during the 1980s mean that manufacturing industry, like the whole of British industry, is a great deal stronger and more resilient as it faces the 1990s than it was in 1979.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister share with the CBI the recognition that there is a terrible underlying weakness in many manufacturing industries, including hosiery, textiles, shoes and other staple industries in areas such as Leicester which were firm before the Government came into power, but are now in a state of absolute disaster?
    Mr. Sainsbury: It is strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems so ready to join those of his hon. Friends who spend their time running down the performance and capabilities of British industry. Manufacturing productivity grew faster in the 1980s than in any other major industrial country. It has improved by a half since 1979 and we should applaud that.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that one problem faced by industry and others is caused by state and private monopolies? British Rail is increasing fares way above inflation; British Telecom, British Gas and the water companies are all raising their prices; and now the electricity industry has announced that it will increase charges by 13 per cent. Why should all those concerned be able to protect themselves against last year's losses when they help to encourage the losses of private industry, which has no monopolies on which to fall back?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As the House knows, my hon. Friend is a robust supporter of competition. That is what Conservative Members believe in, although I have serious doubts whether the Opposition do.
    I shall not go into detail about all the industries that my hon. Friend mentioned, but we like to introduce competition and we ensure that regulatory control is introduced where it is absent. Such control usually ensures that the increases allowed are substantially lower than the level of inflation.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Are not manufacturing investment, manufacturing output and manufacturing employment now falling? Today's figures confirm a 6 per cent. drop in manufacturing output which is unique in western Europe. As the Minister cannot blame OPEC, the Gulf conflict, the
    272
    EC, workers or management for the recession, whom does he blame? Is not this a direct result of the mistaken policies of discredited Ministers in a failed Government?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his facts right. It makes a change. Yesterday, for instance, when he alleged that manufacturing output had increased by only 7 per cent. since 1979, he was only 70 per cent. wrong; the increase was 12 per cent. He is improving.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the profitability of the British steel industry.
    Mr. Lilley: I have every confidence in the long-term prosperity of the British steel industry now that all of it is in the private sector and free from Government control.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the latest figures, which reveal that steel exports are increasing by about 9·5 per cent. and that imports are down by about 6·3 per cent., show clearly that the British steel industry—now privatised—is a guarantee of security in a difficult and troubled world? The failed policies of the Soviet Union and the rest of eastern Europe and those of the socialists on the Opposition Benches would guarantee the destruction of the industry and caused massive costs to the taxpayer in the past.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the previous Labour Government left office British Steel was losing about £1·7 billion a year; now it is making a profit of £700 million a year. If the company were still making a loss under state ownership, we should be bearing those losses: billions of pounds would have to be spent on it instead of on hospitals, schools and other services which we all want and need and which the Government should be financing.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Steel is suffering a severe recession in orders as a result of the Government's incompetent economic policies? Is he aware that it is able to survive financially only because the Government wrote off all its debt on privatisation, thus leaving it free of debt at a time when its competitors in Europe are in very different financial circumstances?
    Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, British Steel is boosting its exports in response to weaker home demand and is also displacing imports. That must be good news. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should take it back into state ownership? If so, is that the policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of the era in which politicians meddled and told it which plant it should keep open, British Steel was the world's biggest loss-maker and Britain had a chronic trade deficit in steel and iron products? Since then, British Steel has become the most profitable steel company in Europe and our trade deficit in those products has changed into a substantial surplus. The last thing that British Steel wants is to go back to the bad old days when politicians told it how to run its business.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he makes his point extremely well. What is more, if we had a

    273
    state-owned, inefficient steel industry we should have to prop it up with protection and all steel-using industries would be forced to buy high-cost, inefficiently produced steel. That is very much what the Labour party seems to want.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State reply to two factual points? First, can he confirm that, in respect of the Ravenscraig strip mill, the Government's policy. as set out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, is that British Steel should review and reconsider its decision with a view to reversing it? Secondly, can he, as the Minister responsible for these matters, tell us what practical steps he has taken to implement that policy?
    Mr. Lilley: I am always happy to put the hon. Member right on the facts. I entirely endorse the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on setting his face firmly against protectionism. Britain's steel industry—indeed, all British industry—grew at a time when we believed in world free trade in not only manufactured goods but agricultural goods. May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will not allow the idiotic common agricultural policy to ruin the GATT talks?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is a great and forceful defender of free trade and I entirely endorse his remarks. We must try to ensure a speedy and successful conclusion to the GATT round. I welcome the news that talks are likely to resume today. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the Community plays a constructive role on agriculture, as on all other matters, with a view to securing a successful outcome to the round.

    Chemical and Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he plans in the export of materials that can be used in the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We continue to work with like-minded countries to take effective action to prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Controls on the export of sensitive materials for use for these purposes are kept under continual review.
    Mr. Flynn: Has it occurred to the Minister that if the Gulf war had taken place a year hence, Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles might have been armed with Iraqi nuclear warheads? Is not it a scandal that British companies exported to Saddam Hussein specialist equipment that he has used in his nuclear programme? Those companies include Avesta of Birmingham, Consave of Glasgow, Magnatech of Crawley, Matric Churchill of Coventry and Swift Lewick of Rotherham. Will the Minister give us an assurance that when the nightmare of the Gulf war is over, Britain will lead the world in reducing the international arms trade, not just by exhortation but by example?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The whole House will share the hon. Gentleman's worry that materials that might facilitate the production of nuclear weapons should be exported. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least because he tables a very large number of questions on the subject, that the
    274
    Government's policy is to prevent the proliferation of such weapons. We maintain stringent controls on the export of all weapons and related material, equipment and technology.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scud missiles are, in fact, Russian?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right.

    Retail Bankruptcies
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection his Department is making available to consumers who suffer loss because of retail bankruptcies during the recession.
    Mr. Leigh: Where goods are purchased under a credit agreement, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that the credit grantor is jointly and severally liable with the retailer for breach of contract. This provision applies where the cash price of goods is between £100 and £30,000, with up to £15,000 paid for on credit. I am not aware of any need for further provisions.
    Mr. McMaster: Does not the Minister recognise that unemployment is shooting up and that businesses the length and breadth of the country are closing? Will he offer some form of protection, or at least some hope, to consumers who are suffering; or will those people have to wait for a Labour Government?
    Mr. Leigh: I am not sure whether it is Labour party policy to disagree with the Director General of Fair Trading who said—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this—that voluntary initiatives for industry were the right way forward.

    The Gulf (Exports)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British exports to Kuwait and other Gulf states following the conclusion of the present hostilities.
    Mr. Sainsbury: When Kuwait is liberated United Kingdom companies can resume supplying a wide range of goods and services. In recent talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Kuwait Government have promised a warm welcome to United Kingdom companies participating in the reconstruction of Kuwait.
    I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government will continue to do all they can to encourage and reinforce the efforts of our manufacturing and service industries.
    Mr. Arnold: Given the considerable and supreme efforts that Britain has made towards the liberation of Kuwait, is my hon. Friend confident that British industry will show itself to be effective in grasping the opportunities that will arise?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that British industry has been taking energetic action to that end, supported fully by my Department. An industry task force is in place in Dammam and it will be seeing representatives of the Kuwaiti reconstruction project office tomorrow for further discussions on the part that British industry can play in the reconstruction of Kuwait.

Transport Disruption (London)
3.30 pm
Mr. John Prescott (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the transport problems in London today and yesterday.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): London Underground was subject to significant disruption yesterday. The major disruption to services was on the Central line. Trains had been held up while suspect packages at Bond Street and Liverpool Street stations were being examined by the police.
At one stage, it became necessary for the London fire brigade to be called as a result of a smoke incident on one of these trains. It was considered necessary for the electric current to be disconnected and the passengers to be evacuated. This took some considerable time and I pay tribute to the passengers, the railway staff, and all others concerned in the evacuation. London Underground has initiated an inquiry into all the circumstances concerning that incident.
With regard to British Rail, since the bombs at Paddington and Victoria on Monday, British Rail has been subject to a large number of incidents involving bomb threats and suspect packages. Since Monday morning, the British Transport police have dealt with about 85 hoax bomb threats, of which around 45 have been in London. In addition, the British Transport police have dealt with 55 suspect packages, of which 35 have been in London.
As a result, British Rail, acting on the advice of the police, has closed a number of stations in London and elsewhere. British Rail has well established contingency plans for clearing stations, which British Rail staff activate on advice from the police, who then undertake searches and deal with any suspect packages.
The worst disruption yesterday was at Reading, where the station was closed for about three hours following bomb threats and the discovery of a suspect package. In London, Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street were each closed for an hour and a half in total, and Liverpool Street was closed for half an hour in the evening peak. Today, part of Victoria was closed for an hour and a quarter; Euston was closed for an hour and a half; and Paddington was closed for two hours.
I am sure that the House will want to join me in delivering two important messages. The first is to ordinary members of the travelling public. Their continuing vigilance is absolutely vital. No matter how much disruption may result from a false alarm—for example, a suspect package that turns out to be wholly innocent—it is better to endure that disruption than to take the risk of a successful terrorist attack. The second is a message to the hoaxers. Those who make such hoax calls are acting in a criminal fashion, they are risking innocent people's lives and they will be liable to receive very severe punishment if they are identified and prosecuted.
Mr. Prescott: The House will thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We wish to identify ourselves with his congratulations on the superb activities of our emergency services once again. We want to add our admiration for the fortitude of the passengers faced with those difficulties over the past two or three days.
276
Does the Secretary of State accept that the difficulties of the past few days are not due entirely to the dastardly act of the IRA or the criminal acts of hoaxers which have plagued our security system and which need to be condemned strongly by everyone? Is it not time that he recognised that the failure of the transport system in the past two days can be traced back to inadequate equipment, the failure of new and old equipment and the lack of staff, whose numbers have been cut by thousands, and failure to maintain security and deal with emergencies? Despite that, those cuts are to continue, at the Government's request.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are inadequate financial resources for London Underground and British Rail, as pointed out by inquiry report after inquiry report, by Select Committee reports on the London underground system and by the chairman of British Rail this weekend, who made clear the inadequacy of financial resources for our transport system?
Will the Secretary of State review the financial framework for British Rail and the underground system, end his obsession with privatisation and end the miserable experiment of attempting to run the capital's transport system without subsidies, which is not achieved anywhere in the world? Londoners are entitled to a good transport system. The fact that they do not have one is directly due to the policy of this Government.
Mr. Rifkind: I suppose it was predictable, but I must confess that I am rather saddened that the hon. Gentle man should seek to use the events of the past couple of days, which were primarily caused by terrorist incidents, bomb hoaxers and other matters affecting security, to make his ritual comments on investment in British Rail. He was quoted in the press a couple of days ago as saying that the number of British Transport police had been reduced. I informed him yesterday that, yet again, he had got his facts wrong. In 1982, British Rail employed 1,456 transport police; in 1991, it employs 1,638. In 1982, London Underground employed 284 transport police; in 1991, it employs 389. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make remarks about security, I shall be happy to listen to him very carefully, but he should not try to use the distress of the past 48 hours to make rather sad and pathetic representations on other matters.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has just said will be echoed by genuine Londoners, who will have been sickened by the cheap political claptrap of the Opposition? Will he take it from me that the London commuter will not be scared off his job by the thugs of the IRA or by the hypocrisy of the Labour party?
Mr. Rifkind: It is the characteristic of the British public that real or possible terrorist threats simply stiffen their resolve to meet those challenges in a forthright and solemn fashion.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the Secretary of State in condemning the terrorist and the hoaxer, who have added enormously to the disruption of the past couple of days.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is backing every horse in the race.
Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a change, it might be respectful and be appreciated by the public.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if the chaos and confusion of the past couple of days, which is suffered by the London commuter day in day out, is to be alleviated, the Government must show commitment and co-ordination? Unless the Government give a commitment to funding and there is co-ordination of information so that people know when to travel, and so that buses, trains and the tube work together, there will always be confusion in the capital, and the country will suffer as a result.
Mr. Rifkind: Of course I respect what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for proper investment in the London underground. The problems yesterday were on the Central line. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the refurbishment of the Central line is the single most important priority of London Underground and that it is undertaking a £700 million programme of refurbishment.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that no one is keener than me to have more investment in the railways. Does he accept that tens of thousands of ordinary families feel that the inability of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to control his natural antipathy towards the police is sickening? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people feel that the hon. Gentleman's constant criticism of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police gives comfort only to the IRA and to the morons who make hoax telephone calls? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Conservative and most decent Labour Members reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says on this issue?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the British Transport police do a superb job in difficult circumstances. They deserve the full support of the House.
Mr. Peter Shore: "Significant disruption" is one of those classic British understatements to describe the experience that many thousands of people had to endure yesterday in the tunnels between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street. They were faced with darkness and heat for up to six hours. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay particular attention to an additional feature on the Central line? Yesterday, and again this morning, smoke came from, I believe, the engine of a stationary train—I am not sure of the cause. Clearly smoke was a great additional hazard. I cannot believe that that smoke was caused by anything other than the state of the railway.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Clearly the cause of the smoke needs to be investigated. London Underground is investigating. Such incidents are not peculair to London Underground or to the United Kingdom. When they occur, they must be investigated and proper corrective action taken.
Mr. Steve Norris: On behalf of the thousands of my constituents who use the Central line every day, many of whom were trapped for several hours yesterday, I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement which, apart from anything else, shows how appalling it is that, in this day and age, dozens
278
of hoaxes are occurring and parcels are left around to disrupt the lives of those who want to go about their lawful business and get to work. We at least very much welcome the investment of more than £600 million, which will produce rolling stock, trains and signal equipment that should be able to reduce the occasional emergencies caused by suspected fires.
I should like to put one point that is clearly important. In the wake of the King's Cross fire, it is understandable that railway authorities should act with caution on every occasion. Yesterday's events were by no means unique—they are a common occurrence on the line. Hardly a day goes by without massive disruption caused by suspected fires. Will my right hon. and learned Friend talk urgently to the management of London Underground to ensure that the procedures are followed to detect and identify callers and to follow up suspected hoaxes so as to reduce disruption to a minimum?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes some fair observations. Part of yesterday's difficulty was that, because of the presence of suspicious objects, trains were stopped and, when the electricity was disconnected, a significant number of trains were on the line. The number of people who had to be evacuated from the trains was significantly greater than is normal in such incidents. However, I take the points that my hon. Friend rightly made.
Miss Kate Hoey: I too wish to express my gratitude to commuters for their fortitude. The people of Northern Ireland have become used to such disruptions over the years. Given the extra safety precautions and the extra cost that that will impose on British Rail and London Underground, have the Government any plans to increase the money available, or will money have to come from the hard-pressed commuters through their fares?
Mr. Rifkind: In the first instance, obviously we shall hope to hear from British Rail and London Underground what conclusions they draw about any improved security measures arising out of recent events. Of course we shall look sympathetically at any reasonable proposals involving new security-related expenditure.
Sir Philip Goodhart: As terrorists invariably want to cause the maximum disruption at the least risk to themselves, does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the closing down of London's railway system on Monday represented the biggest victory for terrorism in the past 10 years? As it is inevitable that there will be further hoax calls—and, possibly, further bombs—will my right hon. and learned Friend consider calling on Army units to provide guards at London's mainline terminals until the bombers are caught? From time to time, the Army provides extra guards at Heathrow. Surely our rail commuters deserve as much protection as air passengers.
Mr. Rifkind: On the appropriate level of security that might be required, I should wish, of course, to take the advice of the chief constable of the British Transport police. I shall obviously draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. In matters of this kind, clearly the views of the police on their ability to cope with what is required will carry considerable weight.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the full horror for my constituents who were incarcerated underground in heat and smoke on crowded trains for hours yesterday? Will he take it from me—someone who was brought up in a London Transport railway family—that London Transport was once the envy of the world? It is now dirty, squalid, unsafe, unreliable, and more fitting to a third-world country, because of lack of investment. The people who run London Transport are crazed ideological fanatics who want to eliminate all public subsidy. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if London Transport were run by elected Londoners who were accountable to the people of London, the situation would be transformed? When will he give the control of London Transport back to the people of London?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view on that matter, but I do not believe that the quality of service provided by London Underground would be enhanced by his proposal. I suspect that even an elected authority of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests would still look to central Government for the funds that might be required.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend should know that the disruption caused by the closing of stations because of awful terrorist bombs and also hoax scares is understood by my constituents. What they find more difficult to understand is that, despite the investment of £1 million a day by Network SouthEast at the moment, British Rail still cannot do the simple things right. It still cannot communicate with travellers when they are stranded. It still cannot make adequate arrangements at other stations so that passengers who have to get out short of mainline stations are properly looked after.
Does not that confirm that, when mainline stations are shut down, there is inadequate co-ordination between various levels of transport in London so that my constituents and those of other hon. Members can be looked after in places such as Clapham Junction, and make a smooth and easy transfer between mainline railways, buses and underground trains? We must look urgently at that matter because, sadly, those crazy and awful events may continue.
Mr. Rifkind: When I last met the chairman of British Rail, I discussed with him the need to ensure full and proper information for passengers who might be stranded or otherwise experience difficulties as a result of disruption. He assured me that British Rail will be giving considerable attention to the need to improve the present unsatisfactory levels of information that are provided to its passengers when problems occur.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: I believe that it is established that the incident yesterday between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street was nothing to do with IRA activity or with hoaxers. I believe that the Central line still has guards on its trains, although, sadly, other lines have not. I hope that they will remain. There are such things as pagers and other modern equipment. It should not have been difficult for people to be informed about what had happened so that they were not so panic-stricken. I cannot understand why they were left in the dark for six hours, so that asthmatics became ill and old people fainted. The
280
explanation that we have been given today is not sufficient. I ask the Secretary of State please to hold a thorough investigation, to report back to the House about why that unbelievable incident took place, and to ensure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a full investigation of the incident. Although there was no actual terrorist threat yesterday, the causes of the problem originated with the finding of two suspicious objects, which had been left on the train, but which clearly could have contained explosive devices. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to agree that it is right to be careful on such occasions because, until such objects are examined properly and competently, it would be irresponsible to expose the travelling public to them.
The hon. Lady is right to express concern at the number of hours that people spent in the underground. That flowed from the decision to evacuate the train once the electricity current had been disconnected. As many passengers had to be taken more than a mile to the nearest station, considerable problems inevitably arose, as well as fatigue for the older passengers who were affected.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the many constituents who have complained to me about being incarcerated in such great discomfort that, as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated, some of them became ill? Furthermore, there was no communication about what was going on, why they were being kept where they were or how long the situation was likely to continue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend press London Underground to do something about its communications with its passengers in that sort of situation and in others?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I attach the same importance as my hon. Friend clearly does to the provision of quick, accurate and reliable information to passengers of either the Underground or British Rail whenever disruption occurs. That should be done, and there is no fundamental reason why it cannot be done at present. There is, therefore, an urgent need for both British Rail and London Underground to address that matter.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: While I welcome the condemnation of those acts, and associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will the Secretary of State tell us why it was not possible simply to shunt the trains forward or backwards to the nearest station, instead of leaving people incarcerated for up to six hours? Does he accept that, although the management of London Transport and the transport police have a lot of experience at catching pickpockets or pursuing fare evaders, they do not have day-to-day experience of coping with terrorism and deciding what is or is not a bogus warning? Might it not be worthwhile to bring people over from Belfast, such as officers who have that day-to-day experience, who can give much better advice about how such problems can be managed?
Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, once the decision had been taken to disconnect the electricity on safety grounds, for obvious reasons it became impossible to contemplate shunting the trains to any particular point. On the hon. Gentleman's latter

281
questions, it is for the police in London to consider whether they could benefit from external advice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have to protect subsequent business, but in view of the importance of this matter to hon. Members, I shall take three more questions from each side, but I am afraid that then we must move on.
Mr. John Marshall: May I first associate my constituency and myself with my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the evils of the IRA and the irresponsibility of the hoaxers? How does the level of capital expenditure by London Transport today compare with the level that prevailed in 1985–86, when it was controlled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many hon. Members believe that London's transport problems would be eased if London's buses were deregulated, as has happened elsewhere in the country?
Mr. Rifkind: Expenditure on London Underground in the next three years will be approximately 100 per cent. higher than in the past three years. That compares very favourably indeed with the legacy of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the unacceptable hazards experienced by Central line passengers yesterday would have been increased if London Transport had initiated driver-only operation on that line, with the support of Her Majesty's Government? Will he assure us that the investigation which he mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) will be an inspection by the railway inspectorate, and that the report will be published?
Mr. Rifkind: At this stage, London Underground is carrying out its own internal inquiry. I have yet to determine whether any further inquiry will be necessary. In response to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clearly for London Underground as the operator to determine whether it is acceptable and safe to have driver-only trains, or whether some other mode is more appropriate.
Mr. David Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State aware that thousands of my constituents were inconvenienced during the past two or three weeks, but that they have also been inconvenienced during the past two or three years? Every time there is a snowfall, it is the wrong snow. Then we have terrorist attacks. Then we have hoaxes. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents are simply not prepared to put up with it any longer? Is not it time that the managements of British Rail and London Underground were sacked? The employees of London Underground are hard-working but the management should be sacked, just as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should be sacked from his job.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the last suggestion which he helpfully made. In response to the earlier part of his question, I sympathise
282
very much with the frustration of his constituents. The chairmen of both British Rail and London Underground took office in the relatively recent past. They must be given the opportunity to carry out very necessary reforms to ensure that we achieve the level and quality of management on both British Rail and London Underground which my hon. Friend's constituents are entitled to expect.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The ultimate management, of course, are the Government. They are the ones who should be sacked. Many of my constituents who were caught for long hours in conditions of intolerable stress probably thought that they were in Baghdad. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will examine the issue of trains being stopped between stations? Associated with that, will he pick up the shameful cuts in cleaning staff and station staff'? If we had had more of those, the stations would have been cleared and checked earlier, and the trains could have been driven through to them.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's observations are somewhat confused. The problems yesterday were caused by the discovery of suspicious objects on the trains. Inevitably, that had to be dealt with in a proper and responsible fashion. That is the background which the hon. Gentleman should appreciate.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind the fact that these despicable hoaxers are in fact, if not in intention, the terrorists' best friends, will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the penalties available to the courts to deal with hoaxers when they are found out?
Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but clearly hoaxers should realise that their behaviour could sometimes lead to the most serious consequences and in certain circumstances to loss of life. In that event, they would face serious penalties if they were convicted by the courts.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State would not be so complacent about the chaos on London Transport if he were a regular user of it. Many tens of thousands of Londoners know just how miserable the Central line is on a daily basis. British Rail and London Transport cannot be blamed for the criminal activities of the IRA or, indeed, the sick perverts who make hoax telephone calls. But the trouble on the Central line yesterday and today was caused largely by the clapped-out rolling stock which is used on the Central line. The smoke came from overheated brakes. The reason why they were overheating was that the trains were overcrowded and could not carry the passengers through.
The Secretary of State referred to a £700 million uprating of the Central line. We have been hearing about that for three years. How much of that £700 million has already been spent on the Central line? To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) said, how come British Transport police and the underground staff—never mind the passengers—do not know what is going on? How come, when a satellite can spot a wart on the end of someone's nose, we cannot communicate properly through telephones and pagers so that London Transport staff can explain to passengers what is happening?
Mr. Rifkind: I have some sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observations. British Rail and London Underground must make a radical reassessment of their information systems, because it is not unreasonable to assume, as the hon. Gentleman does, that, in this modern age, that kind of information should be able to be communicated easily and reliably to passengers who are suffering disruption and problems.
There is indeed a £700 million programme under way now, coaches are already being refurbished and line is being modernised. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that instead of carping about it.

Transport Disruption (London)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Dudley Fishburn

  Sir Peter Emery

  Sir Bernard Braine

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Ordered,
  That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

National Audit (Scotland)
4.1 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Audit Act 1983 to give the National Audit Office additional duties in respect of public expenditure in Scotland, including the provision of assistance to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which will be effective providing, of course, that it has safe passage through the House. It concerns an issue of particular importance to those of us who represent Scotland.
Some people may wonder why I am seeking to find additional assistance for a Select Committee which, disgracefully, has still not been set up. The failure to establish that Select Committee means that we are daily in breach of the Standing Orders here in the mother of all Parliaments. That is scandalous.
I must record that the Leader of the House has been negligent in his duty, and since he is a fellow Scot that negligence is even more hurtful. The people of Scotland will not forget his negation of duty, but I hope that the Bill will help the right hon. Gentleman to overcome some of the problems he has experienced in trying to set up a genuine and proper Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
In the past four years, we have had no opportunity to examine affairs in Scotland. We need the added assistance of that Select Committee, because some 3,000 civil servants are scampering around Scotland doing heavens knows what, apparently answerable to no one. There is a backlog of issues that we should have been discussing and which we must discuss once the Select Committee has begun its work.
If that Select Committee had existed, it would have investigated the socio-economic effect of the loss of jobs that Scotland has sustained in the past four years. The most outstanding example of that would be the shambles created in the steel industry by the attitude of Bob Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, and the team who work for him. The Select Committee would have investigated Ravenscraig, Clydesdale, Dalzell and the role of British Steel in the demise of the Scottish steel industry. That industry has almost disappeared from Scotland—which seems to be British Steel's intention.
The Select Committee would also have been forced to investigate the decline of the mining industry. In my constituency, in Ayrshire, there are no deep pit miners left. There are large pockets of unemployment in Cumnock, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), where the male unemployment rate is about 52 per cent. That in itself would have warranted some investigation to find out what could be done to replace the jobs that had been lost.
The only inquiry in the mining industry involved the reopening of Monkton Hall colliery to produce green coal—low-sulphur coal—and was commissioned by the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, with the aid of local authorities in the district. Those authorities have had to incur expenditure that should have been borne by central Government on behalf of Scotland.
We have witnessed the demise of fishing and agriculture. The farmers recently conducted a magnificent

285
lobby of Parliament and were able to persuade hon. Members that farming, particularly the hill farms in Scotland, was in serious decline and something had to be done urgently to stop the continuing crisis and numerous closures.
As a Select Committee, we would have had a heyday discussing the funding of local government, because during the Government's term of office the revenue support grant has been slashed, capital allocations have been squeezed and the housing support grant has virtually disappeared up the loch.
A Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would have been the appropriate forum to consider closely the subject of the poll tax, which the House discussed yesterday. In Scotland, we were forced to endure the poll tax and were used as guinea pigs to test the tax one year before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. The unbiased report of a Select Committee would certainly have made the unanimous decision that the poll tax, which was unwanted, unwarranted and uncared for, should be disposed of in Scotland.
The House would not have wasted its time discussing the matter, because it would not have been put into operation in Scotland. The Select Committee could not and would not come to any decision except that the present Secretary of State for the Environment seeks to amend the unamendable and is tinkering with something that should not be tinkered with. Some £558 million poll tax dues are still to be collected in Scotland, which shows that the situation is not only appalling, but cannot be allowed to continue.
Five years ago, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs went to Glasgow to examine housing, paying particular attention to dampness in housing. All the members of that Committee, including its illustrious Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), were appalled at the living conditions of the people we visited. The dampness in their homes made clear to all Committee members the appalling life led by those people. Their existence was overshadowed by the awful smell produced by the dampness.
Council officials had told them that it had something to do with the residents' life style, but it was due to a combination of badly designed houses and the fact that the people were so poverty-stricken that they could not afford appropriate heating. To this day, some of those people are still languishing in those appalling conditions. The Select Committee suggested that £50 million to £100 million would have been needed to begin to sort out the problem in Glasgow alone, and the then Minister was quick to jump in with an offer of £3 million.
The Government were unwilling or unable to put names forward for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Opposition were not slow to set up their own alternative Select Committee. Its members were the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Argyll and Bute
286
(Mrs. Michie) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). We discussed the financing and delivery of the Scottish health service.
We produced a report, at the expense of the Labour party, and a very good report it was. But we discovered, first, that we could not subpoena Ministers or witnesses; because of that, many of them were reluctant to give evidence, and none of them would give evidence on the record. We therefore had to rely mainly on people who worked in the health services to supply us with evidence. Secondly, we attempted to enlist financial support from the House of Commons, but Mr. Speaker advised us that that would be out of order—so we had to find the funds ourselves.
The report cost us more than £3,000. We sold more than 300 copies of it, which must be a record for a Select Committee report on Scotland. However, like thousands of businesses throughout the land, and especially in Scotland, we nevertheless found that we had a cash flow problem. Being skint, we had to go into a state of suspended animation and wait to see whether we could find funds to get the Committee going.
As a defender of Back Benchers and democracy, Mr. Speaker must, I know, be unhappy about this matter. In this Parliament, in the country that is supposed to be the mother of all Parliaments, the epitome of democracy, we stand here day after day in breach of our own Standing Orders. Somehow, that must be put right. I suggest that we place in the hands of Mr. Speaker the power to nominate a Select Committee and put it into operation if the Leader of the House neglects his duty to do so. That there should be no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is a disgraceful slur on the democratic structures of this House, and an affront to the people of Scotland.
It gives me great pleasure to move this motion. I hope that the Bill will be given safe passage through to the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Irene Adams and Mr. John McFall.

National Audit (Scotland)
  NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. William McKelvey accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Audit Act 1983 to give the National Audit Office additional duties in respect of public expenditure in Scotland, including the provision of assistance to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Criminal Justice Bill
    New Clause 9

      SEXUAL OFFENDERS
      `.—(1) Where, in the case of a long-term or short-term prisoner—

      (a) the whole or any part of his sentence was imposed for a sexual offence; and

      (b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence, having had regard to the matters mentioned in section 26(6)(a) and (b) above, directed that this section should apply,
      sections 27(3) and 30(1) above shall each have effect as if for the reference to three-quarters of his sentence there were substituted a reference to the whole of that sentence.

      (2) In this section "sexual offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.13 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 25.
      Mr. Patten: These amendments will enable the courts to require many sexual offenders to undergo longer and more intensive programmes of supervision. The purpose is to increase the confidence of the courts—that is very important—and of the public in the arrangements for dealing with sexual offenders, to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from sexual offenders, and to try to help sex offenders to reduce the risk of their committing further sexual offences in future.
      New clause 9 provides for sex offenders sentenced to custody for 12 months or more to undergo an extended period of supervision on release from prison. I hope that the House will welcome that. Under the Bill, all offenders serving sentences of more than 12 months will be supervised in the community until they have completed three quarters of their sentences. New clause 9 will allow the supervision to continue right up to the end of the sentence, if the court considers that it will be helpful in preventing further offending and—this, too, is very important—in protecting the public as well as rehabilitating the offender. It will be for the sentencer to indicate in passing sentence that the offender was one to whom the extended supervision requirements would apply. The court would have to have regard to the criteria set out in clause 26(6), the need to protect the public from serious harm, which I believe to be of overwhelming importance, and the desirability of preventing offenders from reoffending.
      The most dangerous sex offenders rightly receive custodial sentences, and the courts are awarding longer and longer custodial sentences, particularly following the important guideline judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in the case of Billam in 1985 about rape. Quite a number of sex offenders, however—this may surprise but, I hope, not alarm some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members on the
      288
      Opposition Benches—are not sentenced to custodial punishment but are given probation orders and other punishments in the community. It is the Government's belief that some of these people—about 1,000 per year are sentenced in this way—would also benefit from extra supervision.
      Accordingly, amendment No. 25 inserts an additional requirement into part II of schedule 1 of the Bill. It provides that where a sex offender is placed on probation and the court wishes to include additional requirements directed at his sexual offending—it is almost always "his" rather than "her"—the normal maximum of 60 days, which applies to requirements for attendance at a probation centre or participation in specified activities under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part II, can be extended as directed by the court.
      This will give the sex offender the chance to have much more practical work done with him by the probation service and by the voluntary organisations who help the probation service. I pay tribute to what they do in trying to persuade sex offenders not to reoffend, to minimise the risk to the public and to women and children in particular. In both cases, the programme of supervision could be more intensive than with offenders whose activities do not pose a risk to the public.
      Depending on the individual case, the programme might consist of more frequent and lengthy contact with the probation officer or direction to a special programme in an effort to make the offender face up to his criminal behaviour in this most difficult area of trying to stop sex offenders reoffending, to consider the consequences of his behaviour and to accept responsibility for his actions.
      I have been told time and again—the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), with their links with the probation service, will not need to be told this—that sex offenders live in a fantasy world and are often not prepared to face the consequences of what they have done. They try to push it away or ignore that it has happened. They try to say that the victims actually wanted it to happen. It is critically important that these people should be brought face to face with the damage that they have done and accept responsibility for their actions.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us about the control mechanism, as it were, in new clause 9? At present, a person allowed out on parole has to meet the conditions of the parole up to the three-quarters mark. If he does not do so, there is a recall provision which involves his completing the whole sentence. Under the new clause, as I understand it, he will be under supervision until the end of the sentence, but what happens if in the last month of the sentence he fails to carry out the instructions or advice that has been given to him? There will be no control mechanism left.
      Mr. Patten: The person will be subject, as always, to recall and being brought back before the court if he fails to carry out the programme of activity laid down by the court. Working with sex offenders must be one of the most difficult jobs for the probation service and for the voluntary agencies which help the probation service. It is very tough and demanding work and it is currently in the process of great development. I am confident that the probation service will build on its good practice in helping these offenders to control and contain their behaviour,

      289
      with a consequent reduction in reoffending sex offenders and much greater public safety for women and children. I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a sad fact that the number of sexual crimes has increased. Like the Government, the Opposition believe that there must be action to deter such offenders and to ensure that those who commit some of the ghastly offences about which we all know are deterred by appropriate sentences. We agree with the new clause and the amendment.
      There are two Government proposals. The first provides that a court may, when imprisoning a sex offender, direct that he must be on licence or release for the whole of the sentence and not after the three quarters point, as is laid down in the Bill. Secondly, a court may direct that a sex offender who is placed on probation with a condition to participate in specified activities or a condition to attend a probation centre can be subject to that order for longer than 60 days.
      The Government's stated aims are to provide further protection for the public and to help sex offenders not to commit further sexual offences. On the first of those points—deterrence—we strongly agree with the Government. On the other, we should like some clarification as to the Government's purposes, and the resources that they have and will dispose so as to deliver that intention, since their aim is to help offenders not to commit further sexual offences.
      Sexual offenders often have inadequate personalities and a history of being sexually abused when children. Those of us who have read any of the case histories of sex offenders know what a ghastly cycle of sexual abuse and intimidation is carried on in generation after generation. We also know that throwing these people into a typical British prison, even in the 1990s, is not likely to help them to come to terms with their behaviour, or to correct that behaviour. The number of units in our prison system that provide such treatment is small, as both Ministers will acknowledge.
      Our hesitation about the second of the Government's proposals arises from our worry that this cannot be delivered. We believe that sex offenders must be deterred and helped to come to terms with their offending, so that they can stop doing it. It is no good sentencing a sexual offender, throwing him into a ghastly prison with no treatment, no counselling and no psychiatric help, and then turning out someone who is sexually more deviant and pathological than he was when he went in.
      What do we want to do with our society? Do we want this man—as the Minister said, it is nearly always a man—to come out of prison after five years likely to commit a more horrific sexual crime? This is a special kind of offence, and one that is becoming far more common in our time. It is crucial that sex offenders have adequate treatment within prison. Sadly, that is often not the case. There are few specialist programmes in prison, and it offers little protection for the public if offenders spend long periods without help and then get a few extra months of supervision on release. We do not think that those two things make sense. It is not the quantity of supervision which is important, but the quality.
      The Minister has said that the most difficult task of probation officers must be dealing with and helping sex offenders. I think that is right. The training of probation
      290
      officers to ensure that they have the right qualities is scarce. Quality is difficult to obtain, even with good training. We need the right recruits, and then the right training. Sadly, the resources are not available. It is daft to introduce fine provisions in criminal justice legislation if they cannot be delivered with the resources available. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be a move on the quality of supervision and not just on its quantity.
      Some sex offenders may benefit from a treatment programme on release which lasts longer than the normal licence, but it will be impossible for the trial judge to know that. That is a problem with the amendment. Is the trial judge the best person to decide whether an extended period of treatment is right for an offender? At that stage, the decision could be arbitrary. The parole board might be in a better position to know whether the extended period of treatment was necessary.
      Some of the same problems arise over the 60 days-plus for community penalties. The critical issue is the lack of specialist facilities for sex offenders. We need more specialist facilities in the community. There are few in existence, and they are over-subscribed. The probation service runs groups for sex offenders, but it obviously needs enough people at any one time to form a group. Geographically it may be more difficult to form a group in a rural environment.
      It is not clear exactly what the Government have in mind. Do they intend the provision to be used when a court has a particular treatment programme in view, or is it to be used more generally? Will something be tailor-made, or will there be a general prescription? The amendment merely refers to the length of contact. The accompanying press release from the Government referred to a more intensive programme and more frequent contact with the probation service. We want to know what exactly is in the Minister's mind.
      The new provision has been introduced at relatively short notice. The National Association of Probation Officers first knew of it from press reports, yet in a letter dated 12 December to NAPO, the Home Secretary said:
      "I share your concern that the Bill contains important proposals which deserve the fullest consideration."
      The proposals should have been subject to the normal consultation process, and it is a shame that they have not been. A specialist task is involved. The people who will have to deliver the service are probation officers. If there is to be a greater call on that scarce resource, planning is necessary, and the earlier consultation takes place, the better.
      As the two homosexual offences of soliciting and indecency will remain in clause 25, it is likely that licences or community sentences will be extended. There is small fear that a bigoted bench would use that. Perhaps the Minister will note my reasoning and come back on that; we may be able to discuss it at greater length later.
      We accept that the new clause and the amendment are necessary, and we welcome them, but we would be unhappy if, when it came to putting this part of the Bill into action, there was no move by the Government to make treatment a reality, in prison and out of prison. I am sure that this is not what the Government intend, but we would be very disappointed if they merely introduced a late amendment to the Bill to make themselves look good in the public eye without delivering the resources that are

      291
      necessary to deal with the root problem of sexual offenders. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that score.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not devoted more time to discussing the resources needed to make the new clause work rather than simply talking about the technicalities. I fear that throughout our ensuing debates will run the complaint that we are trying to deal with criminal justice and the reform of our prisons before we have had an opportunity to read the Woolf report and to study the recommendations that have arisen from the problems at Strangeways.
      The Government's priorities are wrong. Rather than forcing through legislation at this stage, they should wait for the report. I am sure that it will deal with the treatment of sex offenders at Strangeways and with the substantial problems involved in keeping some of them separate from other prisoners. Such problems are bound to raise questions about resources, and about whether it is appropriate to house the two groups of prisoners in the same prison.
      Many sex offenders lead a very restricted life in prison, not because of the nature of their offences but because of the attitude of other prisoners. Their treatment should start as soon as they go into prison and continue as they emerge into the community, but, as yet, I see very little evidence of a system to enable that to happen. The Government must think seriously about the resource implications and the achievement of continuity of treatment; at present, far too many sex offenders are locked up for long periods, while no attempt is made to enable them to come to terms with their crimes and to modify their behaviour so that their is little chance of their offending again.
      I was a little concerned about the Minister's idea of how the mechanism will work as a pensioner approaches the end of his sentence. As the law stands, a probation officer will move from working with someone on an agreed basis as part of his parole conditions to a system of voluntary supervision. If a prisoner's treatment is to succeed, is not it far more important to persuade him to accept voluntary conditions than to make the conditions compulsory—especially at the end of his sentence, when it will be almost impossible for the probation officer to enforce such conditions? By the time the offender is taken back to court, major problems will have arisen.
      I do not think it helpful to bring in arbitrary decision-making by probation officers, rather than concentrating on the court's decision; but that is simply a passing comment.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the trial judge may not be the most appropriate person to make decisions and that it is important to see how someone responds to the time that he spends in prison and to establish what is the most appropriate way to deal with him on his release at the time when he is released. At a time when he is overwhelmingly conscious of the behaviour that has resulted in his
      292
      conviction, the offender cannot possibly anticipate whether his behaviour will change as a result of the years that he will spend in prison.
      Mr. John Patten: I am very happy to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Important issues such as who should make decisions about resources I shall leave until I am dealing with similar, although not identical, points. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is quite right that the number of sex crimes has increased. I realise, of course, that he is as careful as I am to attribute a proper proportion of the apparent rise to the welcome increase in the reporting of such crimes. People are now coming forward and reporting rape, indecent assault and domestic violence—of course, domestic violence is at the margin of sex crime—in a way that did not apply 10 or 15 years ago.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want women and children to be encouraged to report such crimes, which hitherto have often been hidden, or submerged. It is much better to have the true crime picture than to suspect that things are going on but are not being reported. All sex crimes and attempted sex crimes should be reported, and with the welcome trend towards increased reporting the police and others have a better chance to get to grips with the problem when they have the full picture.
      I welcome the general attitude of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to the new clause and the associated amendment. One or two organisations have already made their views known. At least one probation body—the Association of Chief Officers of Probation—yesterday made a statement welcoming what is being done. The probation service generally, at its different levels, is trying to develop integrated programmes to deal with sex offenders. A great deal of experimental work is going on. It is a mistake to think that all treatment of sex offenders has to be medical or neo-medical. Much of it is a question of simply getting people to face up to what they have done. I have visited probation areas such as Cambridgeshire which have very active programmes within which people are doing this tough, difficult work.
      The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked where the money would come from. They agree that these are interesting ideas and there is broad Opposition support for them, for which I am grateful, but they want to know how implementing them will be paid for. In the autumn statement we announced that we intend, over the next three years, to employ more than 800 additional probation officers—men and women. That is the biggest-ever single injection of personnel into the service. By 1993–94 we shall see also increased public expenditure on the probation service—an increase of one quarter in real terms. It is from that very substantial, not to say huge, increase in resources that we hope to fund the new programmes.
      Related to this is the important issue of sex offenders in prison, which was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and the equally important issue of what happens when they get out of prison and are in the care of the probation service. Is what is known in the trade as the through-care adequate? On the question of sex offenders, I refer to the excellent work being done in Grendon Underwood prison in Buckinghamshire. Treatment of various types—psychotherapy, counselling, aversion

      293
      therapy, and so on—is provided in about 60 of our prisons. I do not, of course, pretend that in all those prisons they are full-time activities.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that there is a very long list of prisoners waiting to be transferred to Grendon?
      Mr. Patten: Yes, and it is a very competitive list. As Grendon is a therapeutic community, people are accepted only if the other prisoners there believe that they can be worked into the system. Hence, I believe, the comparative success of Grendon. As I said, 60 other prisons in England and Wales provide sex therapy courses of one sort or another—courses aimed at getting offenders to face up to their offending behaviour.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When I visited Grendon I saw that it provided a very useful programme—whether it still does I do not know—of plastic surgery for cauliflower ears, noses, and so on, and the removal of tattoos. That seems to have an enormous effect on prisoners of all types—sex offenders and others.
      Mr. Patten: That is a very valuable point. Within the past 10 days, a number of people from Grendon Underwood have come to see me in the Home Office to discuss just that sort of work. I do not want to get into the jargon, but I have to say that, clearly, many sex offenders have two characteristics. First, very often they themselves were abused, either physically or sexually, when they were children. Secondly, many of them have very low self-esteem. That is not to say that they have not done bad things, but their problems must be taken into account when we try to persuade them not to do bad things in the future and to try to go straight. I hope that they will be helped by the provision of the new clause and the associated amendment.
      The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked whether it is right to leave it to the trial judge to decide. I think that it is right because the trial judge will be advised by the probation service with the new pre-sentence report that will be written to national standards within set periods of time. That will give the probation service the opportunity to say whether it thinks that someone will benefit from a period of extended supervision. I would not claim—nor would anyone in the probation service or the medical authorities involved—that there is a cure for sex offending. Some people tell me that it may never be cured in the way that some of us would like. However, it can be controlled by people being made to face up to the damage that they have done to others and to realise that victims have been involved.
      I hope that with those points of clarification the House will accept the new clause and the associated amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 11

      VARIATION AND DISCHARGE OF SUPERVISION ORDERS
      '. For section 15 of the 1969 Act (variation and discharge of supervision orders) there shall be substituted the provisions set out in Schedule (Provisions substituted for sections 15 of 1969 Act).'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER
      'Any person convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm on a police officer in the execution of his duty shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three months, and shall not be released before he has served three months of his sentence.'.
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I wish to declare an outside interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of three months for assaulting a police officer while in the execution of his duty and where such assault occasions actual bodily harm.
      Another reason for the new clause is to draw the attention of the House and the Government to what is now a major problem facing the police in this country. Many of my hon. Friends have put their names to the new clause and they all, in one way or another, advise on and take an interest in police matters. The aim is to deter persons from assaulting the public servants we pay to protect us and every citizen in Britain.
      The House may ask why it is necessary. There are now about 20,000 assaults on the police each year and, unhappily, the number is rising. As a result, many officers are unable to return to duty for weeks or even months. Some are permanently disabled and their injuries are so severe that they never return to duty. Some die from their injuries. That is truly shocking, and it seems clear that those who assault police officers are not deterred from doing so by the existing range of penalties imposed by British courts.
      I shall give a few examples. In Lancashire, in 1989–90, there was a 38 per cent. increase in assaults on officers. Of three convictions, one involved a sentence of probation for 12 months and compensation of £50, and another was reduced to common assault and the case did not even justify a court hearing. In Northamptonshire during 1990, 208 police officers were assaulted out of a force strength of 1,141—almost 20 per cent.
      I received a fax this afternoon from the secretary of the joint branch board of the Northamptonshire Police Federation. It said:
      "The Chief Constable and my Chairman are continually asking the Magistrates to impose severe sentences for this type of assault, and we fully support your attempt to make a mandatory prison sentence."
      4.45 pm
      In Avon and Somerset, in February 1991, an unemployed person who had been convicted walked free from court after a third conviction for assaulting the police. He was given a 15-month suspended gaol sentence after finishing a one-year sentence for offences which included an assault on the police. The judge is reported to have told him that a gaol sentence
      "would do nothing more than protect the police and the public."
      If the report is accurate, that seems a rather strange comment.
      I could go on reading a long list of convictions that have not incurred a custodial sentence, and where a fine has been imposed or perhaps a community service sentence. For example, in Nottinghamshire in December, there were two convictions. One involved a fine of £100 and another

      295
      involved 100 hours of community service and £20 compensation. The constable concerned is still on light duties and may have to undergo surgery. We are talking not about minor scuffles with the police in which a police officer is nudged or shoved but about offences involving actual bodily harm.
      I know that many hon. Members read Police magazine, the journal of the Police Federation of England and Wales. Some hon. Members may have already seen today the tragic case of the late PC Robert Gladwell, whose name has been added to the roll of police officers killed by a criminal assault while in the execution of their duty.
      PC Gladwell and a woman colleague were sent to the Plaza hotel in Queensway, Paddington, on 16 December to deal with a disturbance. The woman officer, Constable Sharon Hofland, was assaulted and sustained a fractured hand as well as being kicked in the stomach. Constable Gladwell attempted to protect her, and received a blow to the head. He suffered concussion and was taken to hospital. On returning to Harrow road police station he began to vomit. He returned to duty on 2 January this year but, two days later, he collapsed and was taken to the Royal Free hospital for emergency brain surgery. He died without recovering consciousness. A subsequent post mortem found that his death was attributable to assault.
      S
      Superintendent Don Edwardson of Harrow Road described PC Gladwell as a professional and conscientious police officer who always gave of his best. He was a former soldier who worked on bomb disposal in Ulster and in Germany. Only a month before his death, he and his wife, Gillian, had adopted a child. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the memory of a fine officer, and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to his widow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
      It is not enough simply to express our sympathy, and his death in the line of duty must not be in vain. The Government must take action to make it clear that society and Parliament do not accept the fact that 20,000 such assaults can take place without a real and powerful attempt to deter them.
      My constituency of Uxbridge is a law-abiding area but, even there, out of a force of 230 officers there was one case of grievous bodily harm, with eight cases of actual bodily harm and 22 simple assaults, during 1990. In Hayes and Harlington, which for policing purposes covers part of my constituency, 58 officers were assaulted on duty in 1990.
      The police, who are often young men and women, are at much risk in patrolling the down-town areas of our towns and cities. The same can be said of police officers in country areas, who are frequently assaulted when, single-handedly, they have to deal with drunken rowdies after closing time.
      When I first became parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I laboured under the delusion that the lot of a country police officer, as portrayed over the years, was a quiet one—that it involved little more than having a jug with the landlord now and again and keeping an eye on the boys who were involved in a bit of local scrumping. I quickly found that the reverse is true. In many villages and rural areas, only one or two police officers may be on duty, and the nearest help is probably 25 miles away. They must often deal with a bunch of rowdies who travel by coach to a pub or club in a large town but return to cause problems in their village. The difficulties and serious assaults that I have described are by no means confined to urban areas.
      296
      How different is sentencing practice today from in the past? I am told that, perhaps, 25 years ago, an assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a police officer would almost certainly have resulted in the offender going to prison, probably for at least six months. A chief superintendent whom I spoke to about a week ago told me of a magistrate in Edinburgh, whom he knew well when he was stationed there as a young constable, telling a defendant, "I will not have you assaulting our police—six months." That was not an untypical sentence. As a result, everyone in the community knew that a person who was convicted and sentenced had committed a serious offence. That person was not, thereafter, well regarded in the community in which he or she lived.
      Today, when assaults are commonplace and incur only a fine or community service, the feeling among the police is that few of the convicted person's relatives, friends or employers are aware of the gravity of the offence or of the conviction. That must be stopped.
      A further reason for the new clause is to demonstrate to the police, including those who have been seriously injured and the relatives and friends of those who have died, that hon. Members care and support police officers in the difficult and dangerous task on which they are engaged at our bidding. That is an important aspect of the new clause.
      I invite hon. Members who may doubt what I am saying to ask any police officer on duty in the House whether they think that penalties for assaulting the police are sufficient to act as a real deterrent, or whether they feel that Parliament cares sufficiently about the dangers to which they and their fellow officers are exposed. Hon. Members will find that the answer to that question is no.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that we do not want to send more people to prison—a proposition with which most hon. Members will agree—but we are debating violent offences against those whose job it is to uphold the law. As the Home Secretary has made clear, violent sentences merit a custodial sentence. As Mr. Speaker Thomas used to remind the House from time to time, this is the High Court of Parliament. This High Court should decide today that it will not tolerate those who punch, kick, stab and slash police officers, or women officers having their hair torn from their scalps or their breasts beaten by someone who thinks that they can do so with impunity to resist arrest. It is time to call a halt.
      It has been put to me by several people with whom I have discussed the problem that we do not have minimum penalties. I asked the Library to compare the position in Britain with that in other European Community countries. That is not an easy task, because unfortunately the only available documentation is dated June 1978. I would not be surprised if my right hon. Friend the Minister told me that the position has changed. According to a Home Office report entitled "Sentences of Imprisonment: A Review of Maximum Penalties", published by the Advisory Council on the Penal System, other western European countries, broadly speaking, operate a system that specifies a minimum and maximum penalty for each offence, within which judges are permitted fairly wide discretion.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is the same in some states of America.
      Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) reminds me that the position in some American states is similar.

      297
      In Belgium, a minimum and maximum penalty is specified in the criminal code. The penalty for ordinary theft ranges from one month to five years. In Sweden, the minimum sentence is one month of imprisonment. In the Netherlands, the acceptance of the short prison sentence is even more marked—less than three months tends to be the norm—and the minimum sentence is one day of imprisonment. I quote those examples to show that the concept of a minimum custodial penalty is not novel. I am asking the House not to return to the days of transportation to the colonies but seriously to consider the position that obtains in other countries of the European Community, to which we pay such regard these days.
      I should like to quote from a letter that I have just received by fax from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr. Owen, to show that the argument that I am putting before the House is, I hope, balanced:
      "I much regret I am unable to support the amendment, for it is far too simplistic. Would someone go to prison for slapping a police officer or spitting at him? That would in my view be totally counter-productive."
      My answer to Mr. Owen is no, I do not believe that someone would. The offence must be assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
      Mr. Owen further says—it is important that the House should have regard to this—
      "Having said that, I am sure you will appreciate the very strong groundswell of concern over the number of police officers who are being assaulted and assaulted quite seriously. We have no protection save the Courts and it is to the Courts that we must look for that protection.
      I have over the last several years publicly expressed my concern and pointed to the leniency shown by the Courts. A recent example of 26 officers assaulted over the Christmas period in my Force resulted in the Chairmen of the Magistrates' Courts in North Wales meeting to discuss the problem.
      It is right that we should draw attention to the growing concerns of the police officer on the street. We need to be sure he will approach and tackle all those incidents which he finds. If he feels isolated, who knows what course of action he will take?—to the possible detriment of society."
      Mr. Owen makes my point very well, and I agree very much with the sentiments that are expressed in that paragraph.
      Although Mr. Owen has reservations about the new clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take them seriously, because they support my general proposition that it is not good enough that there should be 20,000 serious assaults on the police and that this House has a duty to ensure that the men and women who protect the law-abiding citizens of this country can go about their job as we would wish them to, in the knowledge and belief that an adequate deterrent is available to deal with those who assault them.
      This matter requires urgent attention. It cannot be left for a couple more years or for another Criminal Justice Bill. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure me, the federated ranks of the police and ACPO that the Government will take action.
      5 pm
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I understand the purposes of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in tabling the new clause. I welcome the opportunity that it gives to highlight the risks of serious assault faced by the police force and to highlight a growing
      298
      problem. Parliament is anxious about this matter, and the hon. Gentleman was right to provide an opportunity for this debate.
      I am afraid that it is not possible for me to concur with the view of the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we should accept the new clause. He made a big assumption, the force of which is not easy to demonstrate—that the proposed minimum mandatory prison sentence will act as a deterrent. There is a risk that the new clause will act in precisely the opposite direction. People who are stopped by the police want to avoid detention or being taken into custody. If a prison sentence were likely, a person stopped by the police would be likely to go to greater lengths to avoid being taken into custody and the risk of assault faced by the police would be even greater than it is. That would be counterproductive.
      I would move from that view if the hon. Member for Uxbridge produced evidence to rebut it. The hon. Gentleman did not inform the House of the views of the Magistrates Association, although he informed us of the powerful view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that the approach of the new clause to this difficult problem was too simple. I believe that it is, indeed, too simple. The circumstances in which assaults causing actual bodily harm occur can vary considerably, as can the degree of culpability and of mens rea associated with such assaults. Imposing a mandatory minimum sentence would fail to take account of those variations.
      The House sympathised with the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the tragic case of Police Constable Gladwell. A murder charge may be appropriate if the offender is discovered and brought to trial, but I am not sure that that case is relevant to the new clause. The hon. Gentleman says that Parliament believes that violent crime should result in severe penalties, but most people are aware of the limitations of incarceration as a deterrent. Whether imprisonment prevents crimes has increasingly been called into question. The hon. Gentleman did not discharge the burden of proof in explaining why we should depart from the normal practice of not having minimum penalties.
      I should be bound to vote against the new clause if it were forced to a vote. The new clause would damage the cause that the hon. Member for Uxbridge understandably espouses—the provision of greater protection for the police. It would be more likely to lead to greater violence by those resisting arrest, which would constitute an additional threat from which the police would have to be protected.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to support the new clause so ably and convincingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). He deployed a powerful case for having additional penalties which are an effective deterrent.
      I, too, must declare an interest. I have been the adviser to the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the senior officers in the field, for—I hesitate to say—some 25 years. I have got to know the police well. I respect and admire them. They deserve much more than they get, given their vital task. They have always had a difficult task. Being a police officer is difficult at any time, but never more so than today when the police have to cope with a rising tide of crime, especially violent crime. They

      299
      are the thin blue line standing between the public and criminals who do not hesitate to use violence to achieve their ends and to maim and sometimes kill.
      The trend is horrifying. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave the House some examples. Let us consider the most savage crime—murder. Five years before the abolition of capital punishment, there were 290 murders per year on average. That is a frightening figure, but in the past five years there have been 647 murders a year on average. In the 25 years before abolition, 14 police officers were murdered in the course of their duty; in the same period since abolition, 53 have been murdered—four times as many.
      I have been in the House for more than 40 years. During that time I have seen a steady deterioration in public behaviour and an increase in criminality of all kinds. It behoves us to stop now and again and to ask ourselves whether we are doing sufficient to reinforce and to protect the thin blue line. If the public are to be protected effectively—that is, after all, the task of the police—the thin blue line needs to be reinforced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge could have told the House, there are several ways in which that can be done. For example, we could recruit more officers and double the police force—assuming that, in the conditions of today, young men and particularly young married men would wish to join the service. We could increase the number of police officers, or if that proved difficult, we could arm the police. [Interruption.] There is no need for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to intervene. I would never favour such a move, except that if nothing is done to give effective protection to police officers it will happen, and the public will support it.
      Mr. Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied evidence in the United States, where police forces are armed, and has he considered whether the situation there is safer for the police? My impression—it is no more than that—is that proportionately more police officers are killed in those circumstances.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am talking about crime and policing in this country. When I first entered politics we proudly claimed that we had the finest police force in the world—the constable armed by the public, by which I mean not physically armed but mandated by the public to protect them. When I was a youngster, a police constable did not need any weapons—he was a respected figure—but I have seen the respect deteriorate, not because the quality of the police has changed but because society has deteriorated.
      If we do not face up to that issue, we shall need to consider certain alternatives. The first would be to recruit more police officers. I am asking the House to consider whether young married men with children, knowing what happens on our streets, will rush to join the police force. The second alternative—
      Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Bernard Braine: I promised to make a brief speech, and I want to keep it brief.
      Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point that he has just made?
      Sir Bernard Braine: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Archer: Twice now the right hon. Gentleman has queried whether recruits are prepared to join the police. Is he aware that I fully support his view that we need more police officers, but in the biggest police force outside the Metropolitan area—the West Midlands police—the limiting factor is not the number of recruits who are prepared to apply but the number on the strength that the Home Office is prepared to authorise?
      Sir Bernard Braine: Perhaps I did not make my meaning as clear as I should have done. With the new clause we are asking for action to be taken by the Government to ensure that there is a deterrent to assaulting a police officer. That is all that we are asking. If the warning that my hon. Friend described in detail is not heeded, we shall need to consider other means. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but if the trend continues and more police officers are murdered in the course of their duties, or injured and forced to retire from the police force through injury or ill health, it will become more difficult to recruit. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot grasp that, he cannot grasp anything. I am talking about trends, and I make this appeal to the House because the trends that we have been witnessing are serious and worrying. That is the purpose of my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
      The idea of arming the police is politically objectionable in present circumstances. I have no desire to emulate the example of the United States. I want a police constable to continue to be an ordinary citizen who is armed by the community to preserve law and order—that is a wonderful, noble tradition and I want to preserve it—but if the idea of arming the police is politically objectionable, the only remedy is some kind of deterrent to make the men of violence think twice before attacking police officers. That is what the new clause would do.
      5.15 pm
      It is necessary to issue a warning. Unless Parliament shows itself to be concerned to protect the police—to protect the protectors of the public—recruitment will fall. I have been in close touch with police matters for many years. There is no dearth of young men who would like to serve in the police. Indeed, I have a grandson who, when he comes out of the Army, intends to join the police. He is most anxious to join and I am proud of him. But if we ignore the warning, recruitment will fall. I speak with some knowledge of the police and their views. We have no right to show indifference to the increasing dangers faced by police officers. For that reason, I am happy to support the new clause.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am grateful to be called at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being late, but I was detained by duties in another part of the House.
      I must acquaint the House with my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although the Bill does not apply directly to Northern Ireland, there will subsequently be a direct knock-on effect in that part of the United Kingdom. My concern is not exclusively with police in Northern Ireland; it is with all

      301
      policemen in the United Kingdom. It is 33 years since I, as a young man just out of college, became a special constable, so I have some experience of policing from the coal face.
      Throughout the years, I have seen at first hand the increasingly difficult job that our police forces have in dealing with the public. The vast majority of the public support our police forces in an increasingly passive manner. But more and more members of the public are prepared to confront the police and to assault them when there is an opportunity to do so. If we are not careful, we shall soon find police officers believing themselves to be totally vulnerable and that there is little public sympathy for them in carrying out their difficult job. The actions and behaviour of constabularies throughout the country are being questioned more and more. Their job is coming under more and more public scrutiny. It is, therefore, illogical that we expect the maintenance of the highest standards of behaviour from the police service, but that as a nation we do not give its officers every possible protection.
      There will always be those who, perhaps as part of a football crowd or a group coming out of a public house late in the evening, may confront a policeman or policemen and even assault an officer, and who, the following day, will regret those actions. From what I have heard from Opposition Members so far, there may be those in the House who think that a mandatory three-month sentence is a draconian measure. However, we must remember that the minor incidents of people assaulting police officers in the circumstances that I have just described can lead to even more serious assaults or ultimately to an assault that could leave a policeman with a permanent injury or worse.
      Policing is a partnership between the public and those upon whom we call to serve the public by maintaining law and order. If we then require the utmost discretion from our policemen and women, we must demonstrate to them not only that the public, but that we who represent the public in this House, care about them. We can do that only if we demonstrate as firmly as possible that we are not prepared to see them violently interfered with.
      Therefore, I ask all those who care about the police service to ensure that we do not ask its officers to do the job under the impression that they must do it alone. They must be assured that every hon. Member, representing the community at large, is fully behind them and wants to provide them with the best possible protection.
      The alternative was spelt out by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine): to arm our police service and to provide its officers with other means of protecting themselves. None of us wishes that. I have experience of the necessity of arming the police service in Northern Ireland and no one wants that to spread throughout the United Kingdom.
      The answer is clear. The police must have the full protection of the law in just the same way as the public expect to have the full protection of the law. The police are not set apart from the community; they are part of the community. For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting the new clause.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: If any hon. Member doubted the danger to police officers, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who represents so well the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, could
      302
      give the real picture. However, many of us have pictures from our own constituencies. I recently had the experience of going out with the police in Southend when they had to deal with a crowd of drunks on a bus. There was also a frightening incident involving an assault on a police officer outside my own home at 4 o'clock in the morning.
      The crucial thing about which I hope the Government will think is that we are not being successful in deterring crime. No Government have probably tried so hard to reduce the crime figures. We have increased the number of police officers. We have done everything that one could reasonably do, but the plain fact is that we are not succeeding. If the present crime figures had occurred under a Labour Government, I fancy that Conservative Members would have been jumping up and down, making a great deal of noise. We cannot condemn the Government for the figures, but I hope that they accept that they have not been successful in deterring crime.
      The easiest way of discovering the reason for that lack of success would be to take a public opinion poll of young people. We could ask one of the splendid organisations that constantly carries out such inquiries to ask young people, "What do you think would happen to you if you committed a certain crime?" Young people are misguided because the popular newspapers constantly devote headlines to judges who give a sentence of a bag of sweeties to someone who has committed a dreadful crime. Such headlines are far from being representative of what happens in courts because some stiff sentences are applied. However, the Government are probably not fully aware of the extent to which young people are under the impression that not much would happen to somebody who committed a crime, especially if it was a first offence. In Glasgow, many youngsters seem to think that if they say that they are joining a youth club, not much will happen on a first appearance in court. The Government might be alarmed at the answers that they would get if they were to ask young people that question. One of the serious problems facing society today is that those beliefs about what happens in court to young people are leading to a sharp increase in crime; they are certainly not deterring it.
      Although this debate relates primarily to the police, I hope that the Government will consider the principle of a mandatory statutory sentence. In my opinion, that would lead not to more people going to prison, but to fewer people in prison because it would deter crime. If people knew that the consequence of a particular crime was a mandatory sentence, I am convinced that the numbers of people committing those crimes would fall sharply.
      People who doubt that may ask, "Where is the evidence?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who has represented that constituency so well for so many years, gave a hint of the evidence. I challenge those who disagree to say why the murder figures did not rise during the 20 years from 1945 to 1965 when we had the only mandatory sentence—capital punishment—yet all other crimes more than doubled. Of course, some people might say that there were special reasons for those murder figures, but we must ask why they did not rise at all when general crime was on the increase. There is no doubt that many people knew that a dreadful deterrent could be applied if they carried or used a gun. Since the abolition of capital punishment, we have not only had the huge rise in the incidence of murder to

      303
      which my right hon. Friend referred, but there have been even more dramatic rises in crimes involving the use of firearms and, perhaps more importantly, in all crime.
      Several hon. Members take my view that the only way to curb crime and stop people going to prison is to have a mandatory sentence so that people know that if they are found guilty of shoplifting, of robbing someone's house or of assault, mandatory sentences will be applied. Judges could be given special powers to depart from such sentences if they thought that there were particular circumstances relevant to that case. If we tried it, we might succeed in deterring crime—[Interruption.] It is not a matter of fun. I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr Patten), is throwing up his hands as the argument advances——
      Mr. John Patten: Not at my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Taylor: I apologise. My right hon. Friend was making a gesture at another hon. Member who had said something else. I take it all back and wholly withdraw the implication of what I said.
      If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not feel that we should try out the proposal in the new clause, will he please think about the problem of the rising crime figures? We could make many speeches about it. It causes terrible alarm among many people that crime is rising so quickly.
      I accept that the Government have done many things. They have increased the number of officers. They have increased pay. They have done everything that one could expect to deter crime. We have even tried in our own narrow way to improve the living standards of the average family. But we are losing the battle at what seems to be an accelerating rate.
      I appeal to the Government to consider the principle of the mandatory sentence. The evidence is available that it would work. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) suggests that we should try mandatory sentences, not for all crime but for assaults on the police. Of course, we have an obligation to treat policemen in a special way. They are the chaps who have to face the dreadful problems of crime. I have seen the problems that they have, as have other hon. Members.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend is on to an extremely important and interesting point when he directs the attention of the House to who is responsible for stopping crime. I have paid great attention to my hon. Friend's speech. Is he aware of a survey published just before Christmas which was commissioned by the Home Office? It showed that a relatively small number of people in Britain pointed the finger at the Government or the police and said that they should prevent crime. The overwhelming majority—53 per cent. of those asked—pointed the finger at the family and said that it was in the front line in preventing crime and stopping criminality.
      Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that the Home Office is carrying out surveys. That is a step forward. It is good news. I accept that family breakdown or problems such as increased drinking may be factors which lead to a general increase in crime. The Government may be innocent. They may have been wrongly attacked all along. The Minister
      304
      should receive a medal and I should be glad to give him one if it would reassure Ministers that I am making the serious point that we are not succeeding in reducing crime. There is evidence that mandatory sentences would reduce crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggests that we should try a mandatory sentence for assaulting police officers. There are abundant reasons why we should make police officers a special group. They justify special attention because they do a special job. Let us try a mandatory sentence. If it does not work, people like me and others who have argued for it will have nothing much to say. But I believe that it would deter crime.
      I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, now that the Home Office has started to conduct surveys—I wish the Government good luck in that—to ask young people what they believe would happen if they were found guilty of a crime. If he does, I believe that he will find overwhelming evidence that standard mandatory sentences, which let young and older people know that if they commit a certain crime they will receive a certain sentence, would deter crime.
      Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has made a positive suggestion that our next survey should include questions about what young people believe would happen to them if they were found guilty in court. I shall do exactly as he suggests.
      Mr. Taylor: That is a massive step forward. I have been greatly impressed by the active and positive way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister has approached his duties. I honestly believe that if he takes up my suggestion, he will find interesting information. Once that information is available, it might be possible to introduce mandatory sentences.
      I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister—and I am sure that he accepts—that the object of the new clause is not to put more people in prison or to hammer people for assaulting police officers, but to attempt to stop crime and stop youngsters and others getting into trouble. My right hon. Friend has already made a major advance by promising to carry out the survey that I suggested. Let us hope that that and other advances will allow us to begin to tackle and overcome the crime problem with the great zeal and enthusiasm that my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown in his approach to this serious problem.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I accept that, by tabling his new clause, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has highlighted a problem. But his solution to the problem is not appropriate. I hope that at the end of the debate, which should be useful in drawing people's attention to the problem, he will withdraw his new clause.
      Everyone should be worried about the loss of public esteem for the police and the damage done to individual policemen. It is important that as a society we restore public esteem for policemen so that there are fewer assaults on them and they are shown more respect by the general public. It is especially important that the general public come to the assistance of the police automatically and without question when the police need them. One of the saddest features of many cases in recent years has been the lack of assistance from the public to uniformed policemen.
      I add to the hon. Gentleman's list of the problems of the police the growing trend for criminals to use dogs to further or protect their crimes. It is an extremely harrowing business for a police officer to attempt to

      305
      apprehend someone who has with him one of the more vicious dogs such as the pit bull terrier, the rottweiler or the German shepherd, or to enter a house where such a dog is present. It takes a great deal of nerve for a police officer to carry out his duty when he knows that an individual has such a dog with him or on his premises. There is also considerable anxiety among police officers about the increasing use of firearms.
      I accept that there is a problem of the police being attacked. One need only consider the amount of time that police officers have off work to recover from assaults to realise that violence against the police is a major problem. The problem is not only the pain and suffering of the police officer but the loss of a highly qualified officer from work.
      The problem is not recruitment. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) did not have a valid point when he said that recruitment was a problem. The problem is rather different. It is the loss of good police officers to the service as a result of physical damage which results in their taking early retirement. There is also the problem of fear. Not many police officers are willing to admit that they are frightened by their job, but there is much evidence that their spouses are frightened and fear for their safety. That may lead policemen to look for an alternative job. There is a problem of people leaving the police service early when a great deal of money has been spent on training them and they are just beginning to become skilful officers.
      I accept that there is a problem, but the idea that it can be solved by a mandatory three-month sentence is ludicrous. Some serious assaults have been mentioned. It is a pretty sick society which believes that three months is a long enough sentence for such assaults.
      Mr. Shersby: I said that three months would be a minimum sentence. Anyone who assaulted a police officer and occasioned actual bodily harm would be given a sentence of at least three months. There is nothing to prevent a judge or magistrate from imposing a much longer sentence.
      Mr. Bennett: I understand that, but we are dealing with the psychology of crime. We must get it across to people that if they commit a serious assault they will be given a serious prison sentence. It does not seem to me that a three-month sentence would fulfil that psychological role.
      I suggest that the essential problem is that, in far too many assaults, the culprit is not caught. Ensuring that people are caught is the most effective way of stopping crime. I should have been much happier if the hon. Gentleman had put more emphasis in his new clause on making sure that people were caught. If we make it almost a certainty that people will be caught, it will be a deterrent.
      Mr. Maginnis: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but it shows a danger into which we have fallen. We constantly talk about catching criminals and terrorists. The real secret is deterrence. We must deter the potential criminal and terrorist. The new clause is designed simply to prevent those who begin at the lowest level to assault policemen from doing so. It is intended to be a deterrent.
      Mr. Bennett: I firmly believe that the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. It is important that an offence is followed by punishment, but I do not believe
      306
      that many people would commit a crime if they knew for certain that they would be caught. Catching the culprit is the most important deterrent.
      I accept that we have more policemen in our forces, but have we got more of them out on the beat performing their duties? From talking to policemen in Greater Manchester, I know that one of their worries is that far too many of them are not out on the streets undertaking police work because they are tied up with work in the police station. They argue that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has increased their paperwork. I believe that most of that paperwork is necessary, but in Greater Manchester too many police officers are using typewriters—often they type with only one or two fingers—to prepare material and reports when that work should be done by people trained for the job. We could do much more to ensure that more policemen are out on the streets, but that comes down to resources.
      The hon. Member for Uxbridge did not establish the essential argument that many people have been caught and convicted of assaults and given trivial sentences. I do not believe that that case can be established. There is a danger in giving new powers to policemen, whether uniformed or not. In my constituency I know of a sad case of someone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer, but because that officer was in plain clothes the person convicted was not aware of his identity and thought that the officer was carrying out an assault. That problem must be resolved. The new clause states that a person should be convicted of assault
      "on a police officer in the execution of his duty".
      When is a police officer off duty? It is important to consider that.
      The most important thing to ensure is that the public go to the aid of a police officer. The central problem with the new clause is that it seeks special treatment for police officers. Let us assume that a police officer is being attacked and I, as a member of the public, go to his assistance. If the police officer ended up with his arm broken, the person responsible would, under the new clause, be guaranteed to receive a three-month sentence at least. If my arm was broken in assisting that police officer, there would be no guarantee of such a punishment. If one wants to encourage the public to go to the assistance of police officers one must ensure that all receive even treatment. We must not make a special case for police officers.
      Police officers do a difficult job and the law should provide them with the same protection as the rest of us. When people carry out serious and dangerous assaults, they should expect to be caught and the courts should then give them an appropriate sentence.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will withdraw the new clause. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what the Home Office intends to do to ensure that more police officers walk the streets to provide protection for the public. I hope that he will also say what protection will be given to police officers in the course of their duty, as I have every sympathy for a police officer who is on his own with little chance of summoning assistance.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) introduced his excellent new clause he cited figures relating to attacks on

      307
      police officers in Lancashire. He said that in 1990 the number of such assaults had risen by 38 per cent.; but there is more to it than that.
      Before 1989 no record was kept in Lancashire of the number of policemen and policewomen assaulted. In 1989, when those figures were first collated, 277 officers received injuries in the course of their duty. Unfortunately, as we are unaware of the low number of attacks before 1989 we cannot know how big an increase this is, but now we are reaching figures that are increasingly horrific.
      Police officers in our part of the world are fairly tough. They do not consider that they have been assaulted if they end up struggling in the gutter with a drunk. They regard that quite good humouredly and deal with it in an appropriate manner. They do not consider that they have been assaulted if they are hit by a mentally disturbed person, since Lancaster has always been a centre for the treatment of mental illness in that part of the north-west. The police regard their help in dealing with such unfortunate cases as part of their normal duties. In common with all other police officers, they do not regard themselves as assaulted if they try to intervene, perhaps rashly, in a dispute between husband and wife.
      The figures recorded in Lancashire relate to deliberate attacks on serving officers. We know only too well that the public and the police are supposed to react to trouble differently. The public are advised to retreat from any bother, although sometimes brave members of the public do not heed such advice, but policemen must go in, come what may. The recent unfortunate accidents in the tube, which I accept have nothing to do with assaults on police officers, show that police officers have to go to the heart of things—it is their duty to go forward, not back.
      5.45 pm
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that a mandatory sentence would have a salutary effect on the public. People would then know that if they deliberately laid a finger on a police officer they would go to prison and that is that.
      Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I received a letter today from the secretary of the Lancashire joint branch board of the Police Federation. He said:
      "Youths from Blackpool with many previous convictions escaped from a police van, assaulting police officers, and escaped from the Crown Court by jumping from the Dock. Eventually received community service order at Crown Court"
      Does my hon. Friend believe that that is an adequate deterrent?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is inadequate. If people received a mandatory sentence for such an offence we would not witness an increase in the number of people incarcerated in prison—rather those numbers would reduce because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already said, people would know that if they attacked a police officer they would go to prison, and therefore they would not do it.
      Mr. John Greenway: As the House knows, I was once a policeman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to his grandson
      308
      and my eldest son is at present working in the recruitment office of one of our constabularies during his year out from his degree course. I hope that, when he has completed his degree, he will take up a career in the police.
      Assaults on police officers are a serious problem, as the evidence cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) makes clear. Something must be done.
      The Bill has established some new powers, and I hope that they will go some way towards doing something about rowdy behaviour in our high streets, particularly during the weekend, late at night. We hope and expect that the courts will use the new power for curfew orders and electronic tagging. I also hope that the courts will take seriously the new powers relating to parental responsibilities and that community sentences will not be a soft option, but will be extremely tough.
      Much as I believe that anyone who seriously assaults a police officer should go to prison, we must consider whether the new clause is appropriate. There is some difficulty in defining actual bodily harm.
      I know that the House likes to listen to my brief stories from my time as a police officer. I was once kicked extremely violently in a very uncomfortable place——
      Mr. Shersby: In Soho?
      Mr. Greenway: No, it was in the foyer of one of the most distinguished luxury hotels in the west end. I was kicked in a very uncomfortable place. I assure the House that that definitely occasioned actual bodily harm—certainly it was extremely painful. However, the person who did it was a distinguished Scottish teacher, in a dinner jacket, who was blind drunk. Are we saying that that man should automatically go to prison for three months? I suffered other assaults as a policeman 20 or so years ago, and I agree entirely with what my right hon. and hon. Friends said: the violence that today's police force has to face is considerably greater than it was in my time in the 1960s.
      Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend saying that a crime of assault or of any other nature committed when drunk should not be an offence?
      Mr. Greenway: No, I am saying that when people are brought before a court and convicted of an offence, we must expect the court to take notice of their entire circumstances, not just the fact that they have committed an offence. There should be no absolute or mandatory sentence imposed on them. The courts require flexibility.
      When the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted an inquiry into the Crown prosecution service last year, it became clear that the problem of assaults on police officers, and the way in which they are prosecuted in our courts, was of much concern to the police service. In particular, there is criticism that the Crown prosecution service may charge for a mere assault on the police, which is only triable summarily in a magistrates court, rather than charging for section 47 or section 18 offences—actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm—which are triable in a Crown court.
      I believe that all hon. Members will expect that the vast majority of defendants in that position should be sent to prison. I hope that, if nothing else comes out of today's helpful debate, we can send a message to the effect that the House expects our courts to use their powers.

      309
      Much as I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and new clause 1, as he supported my new clause some two months ago, we do not know how big a problem this is. We do not know how many police officers are being seriously assaulted and suffering serious injuries. We do not know how many of the attackers are not being sent to prison. We do not know how many people who commit assaults are being charged with too minor an offence in the first instance.
      Dr. John G. Blackburn: My hon. Friend said that we do not know how many assaults there are, but we do. The figure has been given in today's debate; concrete and well-documented figures have been produced. In the past year, there have been more than 20,000 assaults.
      Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend says that I asked how many assaults there had been. With respect, that is not what I asked. I asked how many cases there had been of police officers who had been seriously assaulted, their assailants found guilty before a court of this country, whether a magistrates court or Crown court, but were not sent to prison for at least three months. That is what we want to know.
      This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Minister has already greatly helped the House and the cause of protecting our police force by responding to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for a survey of young people's attitudes towards what happens if someone is arrested, charged with a crime and found guilty. The Home Office, in collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers, must undertake an inquiry into the sentencing by the courts, as well as the prosecuting through the Crown prosecution service, of cases of assault on police officers, so that the House can consider the matter with all the available information and make a judgment.
      I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed in the letter received from the president of ACPO, David Owen, the chief constable of north Wales. Sadly, we cannot put the new clause on the statute book, but through today's debate we can send a message to the courts that the House and the public expect them to be tough in sentencing people who assault our police officers. Something more needs to be done.
      Dr. Blackburn: As the House will expect, as an act of courtesy to the House I shall declare my interest. For the past 10 years, I have been parliamentary adviser to the National Association of Retired Police Officers. In addition, I declare an interest as a former serving police officer. However, the greatest mandate I have to speak on the new clause is that, for more than a century, members of my family have served in the police force. There are currently three members of my family serving with the Merseyside police.
      The new clause has the full and unqualified support of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) who, due to parliamentary duties, cannot be present for today's debate.
      The House has a solemn responsibility to defend the police service, and the men and women in it. Tonight, every serving police officer in this country will despair at the speech made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which was appalling in its
      310
      content. It failed to defend the police and show them that the House has confidence in them as they perform their duties.
      The new clause will be supported by all reasonable and responsible people of good will who are prepared to associate themselves with the police service. Many speeches we have heard today are testimony to the support given to the police service. I am horrified when I think of what would happen if the day dawned when the House did not give a vote of confidence in, and salute, the fine men and women of our police service.
      By definition, a police officer is a citizen. It is important to note that he is part of a community—the man who lives down the road. We all know him and his family. He is locally appointed, which is why we have 47 police forces in the country. However—this is important—he acts under the authority of the Crown, which is given to him by the House. His role is the maintenance of peace and the prosecution of offenders against the law. The task facing us today is to cloak the police service with the protection of the law. We have a solemn responsibility to do that, and we must exercise it today.
      What will Parliament's response be to the pleas by serving police officers through those right hon. and hon. Members who have been called to speak in the debate? I hope, cry and pray that we shall have a positive response from the Minister of State, and that he will salute the men and women of the police service. However, more important than words are actions. We must make positive moves, particularly in response to new clause 1, of which I am delighted to be a signatory.
      The House has always been generous to me. I was a serving police officer for 15 years. During that time I was wounded twice and assaulted five times. As a result of that experience, I can do nothing else but to support the new clause.
      I take issue with the idea that the deterrent is not the sentence but the arrest. I have seen many culprits arrested, and they have never been deterred by that. When they have appeared before the courts, they have not been given sentences that could be construed as a deterrent either. I know of occasions when police officers have been caused bodily harm in the execution of their duties and when the offender has also been charged with causing damage to police uniforms—and magistrates have imposed heavier sentences for the damage to the uniforms than for the damage to the police officers. Those are the hard facts of life for the men and women of the police service.
      6 pm
      The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that the biggest police force apart from the Metropolitan police was the West Midlands police force. Not so. The biggest police service apart from the Metropolitan police is the Greater Manchester police force. My constituency is under the protection of the West Midlands police, however. I should like to give the House a few details about that police force, which is headed by Chief Constable Ronald Hadfield.
      The last published figures—I take no pleasure in them—in the annual report of the chief constable revealed that two police officers in the west midlands were murdered in the execution of their duty—one shot in a bank raid, the other stabbed to death in the centre of Birmingham. No words of mine could ever convey my strong desire to

      311
      ensure that this House affords the men and women who daily risk their lives because of the responsibilities that we have given them the protection that they need.
      Last year in the west midlands, 1,060 police officers were wounded in the execution of their duties. I was pleased to hear someone mention money and the training of police officers, and the subsequent problems when they are assaulted. The 1,060 police officers wounded in the west midlands lost 7,000 working days because of their injuries. Worse still, many young men and women found themselves, perhaps in the middle of promising careers, before medical boards being discharged from the police service on medical grounds because of the assaults on them. This House has a responsibility to protect the fine men and women of the police service and to do that by supporting new clause 1. I wish it godspeed on behalf of every serving police officer.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is lonely speaking as a Conservative Member and not having been a serving police officer, although on reflection I seem to recall that my wife's grandfather was the chief constable of Northumberland. It is also fairly miserable following my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who condemned anyone who had doubts about the new clause as not being a reasonable person or a person of good will. I hope that he will not ascribe those defects to me. He and I have known each other for a long time and we are great friends.
      Like all other hon. Members who have spoken with great passion on this subject, I am concerned about the safety of police officers. Those who have been here longest will know that I have spoken for the restoration of capital punishment for the murder of police officers—as a great protection—for many years. I have nearly 30 years of practice in the criminal courts and I know from experience longer than that of most hon. Members—except, perhaps, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who was a serving police officer—about the bravery and courage of our police force.
      Nevertheless, I have doubts about the new clause. I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practise in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale told us of his experience with an intoxicated reveller who attacked him in his foyer—[Laughter.] I should perhaps have said in the foyer.
      Once we go down the slippery slope of minimum sentences, where should we stop? I know that we have one for murder, but that was a quid pro quo for abolishing capital punishment and there were special reasons for it; when this Bill is considered in the other place it may be attacked for doing nothing about the abolition of that statutory sentence. Why should not we have minimum sentences for child abuse, rape, pornographic offences, perversions, buggery or torture? Why not for blackmail—or even for theft of the royal mail? The only way to ensure that the mail is always delivered is to give out stiff sentences to postmen or anyone else who interferes with it. That is done in the United States of America.
      Speeches calling for minimum sentences have always been resisted over the years. Governments have resisted
      312
      the idea of going down this slippery slope because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases——
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend said that there was a minimum sentence for murder, but my understanding is that life sentences can mean anything at all, depending on the views of the Home Secretary of the day. Some life sentences are served in six months.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend and I have common cause in that campaign and I agree with him; nevertheless, the sentence is statutory. Since my hon. Friend has provoked me, I must point out that if we imposed a minimum sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a police officer, resulting in offenders being sentenced to at least three months' imprisonment, it would not be the courts that decided what the sentence should be: the prosecuting authority or the police would decide that a type of offender should not go to prison for three months and would therefore charge him with, say, assaulting a policeman in the execution of his duty even though there had been assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That would take us further down the road to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) objects—that of administrative sentencing. That is as undesirable as minimum sentencing, and for the same reason. It removes the power of the judiciary to assess the appropriate sentence for the circumstances.
      Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. and learned Friend has enormous experience of the courts and I follow his line of argument up to a point, but what we are concerned with is how to prevent assaults on police officers. We are concerned with preventing violent crime. How would he prevent the assaults on police officers that the House wholly deplores?
      Mr. Lawrence: If one gives the courts flexibility of sentencing, in an appropriate case they may give nine, 12 or 18 months or even three years for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a police officer.
      I left the Chamber for a moment to fetch from the Library the "Current Sentencing Practice", because I should not like my hon. Friends to think that no guidance was given to the judiciary. Unfortunately, someone has stolen it. The stealing of law books from the House of Commons Library would be my first choice for a minimum sentence.
      Mr. Tim Janman: May I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the point at which we stop on minimum sentencing is embodied in my new clause 5? It is not the judiciary who are elected to the House to represent the concerns of the British people about crime and the need to give greater protection to the "thin blue line", as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said. Hon. Members do that job. As there is still a great deal of flexibility for the courts if we set a minimum as well as a maximum sentence, I do not understand why my hon. and learned Friend has such an objection to the elected representatives of the people seeking to insert, for various categories of crime of which this may be one, not only a maximum but a minimum sentence. There would be a good deal of flexibility between those extremes.
      Mr. Lawrence: My answer to that point is the entire speech that I am making. I do not think that Parliament should set minimum sentences, for the reasons that I am trying to give.
      Returning to the point that I was making before my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) intervened, I was going to bring into the Chamber "Current Sentencing Practice", which contains several pages of guidelines to Crown court recorders, High Court judges and anybody else in the process of sentencing about what to do in the case of an assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty or an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I cannot remember word for word what their lordships have said in the higher courts—I shall be corrected by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) or by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—but my recollection is that it is that assaults on the police are so serious, and it is so important that we should defend the police, that it must hardly ever be appropriate not to send the offender to prison. Therefore, only very occasionally should those who commit assaults occasioning actual bodily harm on police officers not be sent to prison, and the reasons for not sentencing them to prison must be weighty.
      With all my regard for my hon. Friends, for their depth of feeling and for their passionate support, which is totally justified, of police officers, I do not think that the police officers themselves would, in quiet, considered moments, consider that we should go down the slippery slope of minimum sentences, for the reasons that I have given. Strong emotion is one thing; cool thought is another. I am sure that most of the people who sit or spend time in our courts will want us to consider long and carefully before we go down that slope or support this new clause. If statistics were to show that police officers were inadequately protected, I would change my mind, but I do not think that they do. Until they do, we should continue not to have a minimum sentence.
      I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies he will take into consideration the views that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale have expressed.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Sheerman: This has been a most interesting debate. Uncharacteristically, across the party divide, I feel myself drawn warmly to some of the arguments by hon. Gentlemen with whom I do not often agree. I think particularly of debates on capital punishment and the arguments that I usually hear from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). On this occasion, however, I find his arguments convincing.
      Anyone who has listened carefully to the debate, as I have, senses that it is a feeling of frustration which has led to this new clause. I can understand that frustration. When crime rates have been soaring and when we do not seem to know what to do about them, there is a feeling that almost anything must be tried. The motives behind the amendment may be quite pure, and they were passionately put by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I understood the passion and frustration in the amendment which bears his name, but as
      314
      a sensible and rational response to the problems of rising crime and attacks on the police, the amendment will not work.
      Opposition Members take these things extremely seriously. We have been working very hard, looking at the whole way in which policing is carried out, and we feel. with great respect, that we need a far more fundamental evaluation of our present position on law and order and effective policing. It is high time—the debate on this amendment demonstrates it—that we had a thorough look at policing in the late 20th century.
      I agree with the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, David Owen, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and other hon. Members on both sides in their analysis of the amendment, that we must do something about these attacks on the police but that this is not the right way to do it, even though we condemn the assaults and condemn the environment in which they take place. Not only must such behaviour be condemned—we must consider seriously the way in which we solve the problem; but we cannot support this new clause.
      I do not want to keep the House; we have spent a long time on this new clause, and there are many more to come. The law as it stands provides the right remedies. The guidelines mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Burton exist. A very dangerous precedent would be set by this blanket ruling. It would undermine a fundamental principle of British justice—that cases must be judged, within that framework of guidelines, on their merits.
      I talked very recently to an eminent recorder who pointed out that he had had before him not long ago a case of quite a serious assault—in one way, a very similar assault to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Ryedale. A policeman got a black eye, a damaged ear and other slight injuries. The court, taking the circumstances of the case into account, did not send the man to prison. There is a great danger that, if the flexibility of our court system were not a fundamental principle of British justice, it would be less fair.
      The second part of the new clause would remove parole from the options. This also is difficult, as it would run counter to the theme behind the Government's proposals in the Bill.
      We hope that the Government will resist the new clause. It is unnecessary, it is against the feeling of the Bill and it would sidestep the issue that we should be doing something fundamental to reassess the role of British police in our society.
      Mr. John Patten: The House has been united on two points. The first is our sorrow at the outrageous incident that led to the death of PC Gladwell. I know that the House would like to extend our sympathy to his widow and family. Secondly, we are united in whole-hearted support of the police, and in our desire that the police should be protected.
      This interesting debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who, with his usual clarity, set out the position of the police, and the need for protection in contemporary society. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), whom I first met in a back kitchen near the border when he was an innocent member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, before he came to the

      315
      House. We all listened to what he had to say and we support what the Royal Ulster Constabulary does in the Province to help the people there.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who was kind enough to let me intervene not once but twice in his speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who made a characteristically powerful speech, supported my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
      We also heard from some agnostics, some "don't knows" and some "dead againsts" such as the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Another was my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a serving policeman. He has given a new impetus to the expression "a kick in the foyer". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke powerfully, as someone who sits as a recorder.
      If all worked well in the criminal justice system, the police would get the protection that most people want them to get, because of the offences that already exist. Section 51 of the Police Act 1972 and the important guideline sentences from the Court of Appeal are part of the system. In 1979, the case of McKenlay laid down the clear guideline judgment that, even in the case of minor assaults on the police, if the court sees fit to give a sentence of imprisonment, it should do so.
      In the same year, the equally important case of Byrd went to the Court of Appeal. Two police officers were knocked to the ground; their assailants were found guilty and sentenced to six months. In an appeal, the judgment was upheld and the Lord Justice of Appeal thought that the sentence might not have been long enough. The Attorney-General now has the power to go back to the Court of Appeal when he feels that sentences are too lenient, and he has done that in 24 cases. In 21 of those cases, sentences were increased. That additional power was welcomed when it was introduced.
      I prefer not to get into too much detail on whether we should have minimum sentences, for I am looking forward to debates on that when we get to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). In any case, my case was pleaded eloquently for me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Nor do I want to get involved in a debate about where to stop. We could ask whether such protection should be extended to prison guards, probation officers or even sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, all of whom do a difficult job.
      I make my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and his supporters an offer. We do not have adequate information. I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, in response to an important point he made, an undertaking that I will ask a series of survey questions. We do not yet have the 1990 figures, but we have the 1989 figures. As I remember it, there were about 37,000 convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in England and Wales. In 10 per cent. of those cases, sentences of imprisonment were given, and the average sentence was seven months.
      However, we do not know how many of those cases of assault were against policemen and policewomen, who share the difficult task that the federated ranks and the
      316
      superintendent ranks carry out. For the reasons that I have given and that have been given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and others, it would not be right for us to proceed on the basis of inadequate information. There is a great deal of anecdotal information, of which I do not doubt the importance or strength, but that is not sufficient evidence. I have already ordered a survey of such statistical material as the Home Office has to see whether we can get this information.
      In response to the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I am prepared to say that, for a six-month period from 1 June this year, we shall conduct a survey of all court sentences on this offence to see how many involve policemen and policewomen and how many lead to sentences of imprisonment. Then, if we find that the situation is not as we want, we shall have to take action—I echo the views of my hon. and learned Friend and of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
      As soon as the figures are available, we shall conduct a survey, and I shall make the figures available to the House. I hope that, with that undertaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will not push the new clause to a Division.
      Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has resumed his seat.
      Mr. Shersby: I thank the House and all hon. Members who have contributed to this useful debate. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the assurance that he will conduct a survey. I gave a figure of 20,000 assaults on police, many of them occasioning actual bodily harm, and I am certain that the Police Federation and the other police staff associations will be pleased to co-operate with the Home Office in carrying out the survey to validate those figures and to pinpoint how many of them fall in that category.
      The Police Federation, in advance of the debate, asked the secretaries of the joint branch boards of the 43 police forces in England and Wales for information about the number of cases where a custodial sentence was not awarded. I was alarmed at the information that came back to me, which showed that custodial sentences have not been awarded in quite serious cases. That is why the offer of a survey is valuable; it will enable the House to have at its disposal figures which are incontrovertible.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will lose no time in coming back to the House, when he has the evidence, with proposals to deal with the problem. I am sure he knows that Greater Manchester police have already set up a survey and monitoring procedure of their own; that was announced by Sir James Anderton recently. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw upon the information gathered by Greater Manchester.
      In the light of what the Minister has said and the contributions of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who rightly pointed out that we need to examine the problems faced by the police in modern society, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would want me to tell the House that when, in the course of my speech, I said that someone had stolen "Current Sentencing Practice" from the Library, I appear to have been mistaken. I should not like to cast aspersions upon anybody who has anything to do with the House of Commons Library.
      I have a note from the Librarian to say that the book has been returned. That means, first, that there was never any intention to deprive the owner permanently thereof, and therefore it cannot have been theft; and, secondly, that there is more to be said for televising the proceedings of the House than I had thought.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very relieved to hear that honour has been restored.

    New Clause 2

      IMPRISONMENT OF FINE DEFAULTERS
      `(1) A magistrates' court may not issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying any sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction unless it is of the opinion that it would be—

      (a) impracticable to enforce payment of the sum by a warrant of distress or an attachment of earnings order or an application for deduction of sums from amounts payable to the offender by way of income support; and

      (b) inappropriate to enforce payment by any other method.

      (2) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment for default in paying any sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction, it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that it would be impracticable to enforce payment of the sum by a warrant of distress or an attachment of earnings order or an application for the deduction of sums from amounts payable to the offender by way of income support.
      (3) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (2) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—fine default—
      '1(1) Subject to subsection (2) below no court shall have the power to commit to custody any person in respect of the non-payment of all or part of a fine where the offence for which the fine was imposed was itself non-imprisonable.
      (2) A court may commit a person to custody for non-payment of all or part of a fine if the court is satisfied that the default is due to the offender's wilful refusal to pay and that there is no other method of dealing with that person.'.
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clauses 2 and 3 aim to prohibit the imprisonment of fine defaulters except where other methods of enforcement are impracticable. Many of us who are interested in criminal justice reform will have read our Dickens and will have been impressed by the ghastly conditions of debtors' prisons. Some of us thought that they had long since disappeared from British society, but a large number of people are still sent to prison because of failure to pay their fines.
      New clause 2 requires any court imprisoning a fine defaulter to state its reasons for believing that it is impracticable to enforce the fine by attaching earnings, attaching income support or the distraint of goods. The
      318
      aim of the new clause is to eliminate the imprisonment of fine defaulters except where it is genuinely impracticable to obtain payment.
      Evidence shows that far too many people are not given the fullest opportunity to pay. More than a fifth of the people sent to prison each year in England and Wales are there because of non-payment of fines. That means that a great many people are sentenced for offences other than violence or other serious crimes. Of course, we want those who are guilty of sexual offences or of violence to be sent to prison, but do we want our prisons to be full of people who default on fines? Are there not better ways to ensure that people pay their fines?
      In 1989, a total of 16,985 people were imprisoned for fine default. The fines had been imposed for a wide range of offences, the largest category being motoring offences. That is astonishing. Of those fined for motoring offences, 4,581 who did not pay the fines finished up in prison. The number sent to prison for theft and fraud was 3,865. In 1989, 22 per cent. of all offenders entering prison and 40 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less were there for fine default.
      Let us imagine what that does to the prison system, which clogs up with people who should never have been in prison in the first place. Those people have to be admitted, processed and looked after, which involves a great deal of administration. Because most sentences for fine default are short, defaulters represent just 1·3 per cent. of the average daily population of sentenced prisoners and 11·4 per cent. of those serving six months or less. That puts the matter in perspective.
      However, even a small proportion of fine defaulters can cause serious problems for a hard-pressed prison system, especially since the strain is felt most in local prisons where overcrowding is greatest. Those of us, like the Minister of State, who have been to Armley, Strangeways and other local prisons know the pressure on them. We should be taking whatever pressure we can off them.
      We are still waiting for the Woolf report on the investigation into the Strangeways disturbance. We hope to have it before the Bill goes to another place. Before we even see that report, we know that if we could have taken some pressure off Strangeways and other local prisons by getting fine defaulters out of prison, we would have done a thorough job in keeping out of prison people who should never have been there and in taking pressure off a prison system which is near breaking point, especially when we think of the work involved in the reception of 17,000 prisoners, regardless of each prisoner's length of stay in the establishment.
      Two important provisions in the Bill could bring about a great reduction in the number of imprisoned fine defaulters. The first is the unit fine system which, by tailoring fines in proportion to an offender's income, should reduce the number of unrealistically high fines imposed on poor offenders. We have been campaigning for that for many years, and at last we have got it. It is common sense that people should pay a proportion of their income and that that proportion should be fair.
      The second provision will enable fines to be deducted from income support payments. Since it is estimated by the Home Office that 90 per cent. of imprisoned fine defaulters are unemployed, that should provide a practical alternative to imprisonment in many cases. Because courts will be able to attach earnings or income support and to distrain goods, it should rarely be necessary to resort to

      319
      imprisonment. The new clauses would help ensure that courts use wide-ranging enforcement powers to obtain payment instead of imposing imprisonment.
      The new clauses would add to the provisions in the Bill. They deserve sympathetic consideration by the Government. When they were debated in Committee the Minister of State said:
      "Attachment of earnings and the attachment of social security payments—a reform that has been welcomed widely—will make it possible for people to avoid imprisonment. If they are not satisfied, magistrates do not have to commit people to prison".
      He concluded:
      "Although the introduction of the new clause is well intentioned, it is unnecessary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 February 1991; cc. 735–6.]
      Those comments miss the point. Giving the courts a range of powers to enforce fines does not guarantee that they will always use them when it is appropriate. At present, the readiness of courts to use their enforcement options varies greatly. Research into four magistrates courts by the Vera Institute of Justice, published in 1986 under the title "The Enforcement of Fines as Criminal Sanctions", found that
      "courts rarely exhaust the enforcement options available to
      them before they resort either to the most coercive (and most costly) enforcement device—a committal to prison—or to writing off the fine as uncollectable."
      More recently, the result of research at one arrears court by Drs. Allison Morris and Lorraine Gelsthorpe was published in The Magistrate in October 1990. Those academics wrote:
      "From an examination of the outcomes, it is clear that certain powers of enforcement were rarely used: there was only one money payment supervision order even though a number of defendants seemed to have severe personal difficulties. And there was only one attachment of earnings order made yet more than half … of the men interviewed were employed at the time of this hearing. In few cases was the question of an attachment of earnings order even raised".
      It seems that those powers could be used more widely,
      "particularly where a suspended committal is used as a substitute method of enforcement … The arrears court we attended relied more heavily on the use of suspended committals than many of its other enforcement powers."
      If that is the case—the evidence that we have quoted is, I think, both respectable and thorough—the Minister should accept the new clause. That would have a major effect on our prison system, and would ensure an end to the Dickensian situation to which I referred earlier. Many hon. Members have incurred fines for speeding——
      Mr. John Patten: Name them.
      Mr. Sheerman: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been fined recently. Such people should not end up in prison, and the new clause would ensure that they did not.
      The report in The Magistrate concluded:
      "Arrears courts should perhaps be obliged to show that they have used all other powers available to them before resorting to suspended committals."
      The discipline of having to give reasons in the form required by the new clause would help to focus the attention of the courts on the alternative enforcement methods available, and to reduce the chances of defaulters being imprisoned unnecessarily. The Bill requires courts to give reasons for imposing custodial sentences, but does not require them to do so when imprisoning offenders for default. However, the arguments for such a requirement in
      320
      default cases are equally strong. In that area of decision-making, as in others, a requirement to give reasons would usefully concentrate sentencers' minds, and would structure their decisions.
      We do not consider our proposals highly political, except in the sense that it is a stain on our society that so many prisoners should come into contact with far more serious offenders, and with a prison culture that may introduce them to what has been described as a university of crime. It must be wrong to send fine defaulters to prison to perpetuate the system of debtors' prisons in modern Britain. We hope that the Government will see what a dramatic change our proposals could make.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Barry Porter: I came here to listen, and I have listened with interest to much of what has been said; I had no intention of speaking, but having heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) I am prompted to express the hope that he will occasionally attend a court rather than listening to academics talking about them.
      In this country, it is extremely difficult to be sent to prison—people have to work at it rather hard. I have spent a large part of my life defending the undefendable, and sometimes the indefensible, and I know how the system works. A person may describe, with tears in his eyes, being convicted for a motoring offence and thereafter sent to prison, but it is not like that at all. A chap who has been driving without insurance or without a licence, for instance, will be fined a couple of hundred pounds on the unit system, which has in practice been working for years. Magistrates do not fine people who are on social security—or whatever it is called nowadays—more than a man earning £10,000 per year.
      The motoring offender is then fined £200 for various offences and, on the advice of people like myself, offers to pay £2 per week. The magistrate will tell him to pay £3 a week—or, in the case of a particularly hard bench, £4. The offender will tell me—or, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—that he cannot pay, whereupon we will say, "Have a go, and come back in three weeks." We will then make an application to have the order varied.
      The magistrates will vary the order to £2 or £3 a week. If the offender still does not pay, he will be brought back to an arrears court, where he will say, "£2 is all that I can pay." A suspended committal follows—rather harsh, at that stage.
      It does not often happen in that way, however. In my experience, and in that of anyone who practises in the courts, magistrates go to vast lengths to ensure that the weekly amount can be paid; only a fool, or someone who is determined not to obey the order of the court, will end up in prison. People may talk of a university of crime, but these are offenders who will go down for 14 or 30 days. I have known people to choose that option, because it is cheaper and relatively pleasant—in their experience—to spend time in Walton prison in Liverpool, and they would rather do that than pay up.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggests that there is a Dickensian state of affairs in which people are sent to prison for debt. That state of affairs does not exist. Nowadays, if people go to prison for not paying fines, it is

      321
      because they choose to—every magistrates court in my experience has given people every possible opportunity to avoid that. The new clause is a waste of time.
      Mr. Maclennan: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I enjoyed reading the speeches, especially those made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He made a notable contribution to the Committee proceedings, and has done the same today. As I agree with every word that he has said, I need not speak at length this evening. It is sometimes pleasant to express satisfaction with an identity of view across the parties, and to put aside the partisan feelings that too often divide us.
      No doubt the anecdotal evidence presented by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is true of many individual cases with which he has been associated, but he did not attempt to argue against the statistical evidence regarding the people who end up in prison for defaulting on fines. The hon. Gentleman said that for some people it was cheaper to go to prison than to pay a fine. That is no reason why society should accept their choice if there is another way of dealing with the problem. It is more expensive for society to imprison people, and if we can possibly keep those people out of prison, that must be our objective.
      Mr. Porter: They will never pay.
      Mr. Maclennan: There may be an irreducible number of people who will not pay. I understand that in a number of Scandinavian countries it is not possible to send people to prison for fine default. Experience in those countries is not such as to suggest that we should lightly cast these new clauses aside. In the light of some of the arguments that the Minister deployed in Committee, I believe that, strictly speaking, the new clauses may not be necessary. However, they are desirable. What is particularly desirable is the requirement that the reasons for not adopting the alternative methods of ensuring the payment of fines should be given. The requirement to give reasons could very well alter practices which fall short of the Government's clear intention that incarceration should be avoided in all but the most serious cases.
      Mr. John Patten: It is always good to hear people speak from experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), whom I am happy to see on the Front Bench now, gave us the benefit of his quarter century's practice in the courts. He and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) have seen some of these things at first hand in the area where they both practise. I enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on the Standing Committee, and felt very uneasy that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was not there. Taking a criminal justice measure through its stages is not the same without the presence of the hon. Gentleman. However, we have heard him today.
      I should be right behind much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and would suggest that his new clauses be accepted, were it not for changes made in other parts of the Bill. We are introducing unit fines and income support attachments, which I believe make these new clauses unnecessary. None of us wants to see fine defaulters committed to prison unnecessarily. The number of people committed for default went down steadily during the 1980s. The average
      322
      time a male defaulter spends in prison is now eight days, and in the case of a women it is six days. These periods are considerably shorter than those which applied in the Dickensian England conjured up by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. Indeed, the length of time that a fine defaulter now spends in gaol is half what it was a decade ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wiral, South said, it now quite hard to go to prison unless one really wants to.
      Under the Bill, because of the introduction of unit fines and income support deductions, the number of people in prison should fall quite rapidly. In saying that, one is not crying in the wind. Unit fine scheme experiments conducted in four areas—one in Wales, and the other three in England—indicate that the number of people imprisoned for fine default fell quite sharply. Thanks to the radical changes that the Bill makes—changes which have been widely welcomed—I believe that that trend will continue. That being so, I cannot recommend that the House should accept the new clauses.
      Mr. Sheerman: I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Wiral, South (Mr. Porter). It seems that, after all those years in the courts, he is rather cynical. It is a pity that he is unable to take a fresh look at the situation—especially at the figures and at the research material that I quoted. As I have said, a large number of people are ending up in prison for the non-payment of fines. The Minister agrees that they should not be there. It is in a positive spirit that Her Majesty's Opposition are trying to improve the Bill.
      Mr. Patten: What about unit fines?
      Mr. Sheerman: We understand unit fines. Indeed, for years we have campaigned for them. We also understand social security payment attachments. All of that is indeed good stuff, but our new clauses, with the other changes, would create a system which would to a large extent clear out of our prisons people who had not paid fines. That would be a very positive step.
      I was grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is good to know that he and I agree on this. We have here an opportunity to get away from a Dickensian situation. Whatever may be said, many of our prisons have conditions very similar to, if not worse than, those that Dickens described. Even if people choose to go to prison for seven or 10 days, or however long, imprisonment for this kind of offence cannot be right, and we want to stop it. The new clauses, with the other changes made by the Bill, would help to achieve that.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made an excellent point when he talked about people choosing to go to prison. I understand that some people on low incomes who get into debt might choose to go to prison for five or 10 days as a means of wiping out the debt. As a society, however, we ought not to provide that option unless everything else has been tried. Only when all other measures, such as attachment of earnings or of social security payments, have been exhausted should the court reluctantly choose a short term of imprisonment. That is all that the new clauses seek to achieve.
      Mr. Lawrence: As that is what happens already, is there any basis for the new clauses?
      Mr. Sheerman: Every year, under the present system, 17,000 people are sent to prison for short terms. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House earlier, he would have heard the research evidence that I quoted. That research shows that magistrates do not use their powers. Under the new clauses, magistrates would be directed to go through all other processes before imposing terms of imprisonment. I should have thought that that very simple proposal would be acceptable to any reasonable Member. We shall reluctantly press the new clauses to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 300.

      Division No. 71]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Faulds, Andrew

      Alton, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Anderson, Donald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Flynn, Paul

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Foster, Derek

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Barron, Kevin

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Battle, John

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beith, A. J.

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bell, Stuart

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bellotti, David

      Gould, Bryan

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Graham, Thomas

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Boateng, Paul

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boyes, Roland

      Hardy, Peter

      Bradley, Keith

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Buckley, George J.

      Henderson, Doug

      Caborn, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hood, Jimmy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cartwright, John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Illsley, Eric

      Cohen, Harry

      Ingram, Adam

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Crowther, Stan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cunlitfe, Lawrence

      Kilfedder, James

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Darling, Alistair

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lambie, David

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Dixon, Don

      Leighton, Ron

      Dobson, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Doran, Frank

      Lewis, Terry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Litherland, Robert

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Loyden, Eddie

      324

      McAllion, John

      Richardson, Jo

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, George

      McCartney, Ian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Rooney, Terence

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKelvey, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      McMaster, Gordon

      Salmond, Alex

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Madden, Max

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Short, Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Martlew, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Meale, Alan

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Michael, Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Strang, Gavin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Straw, Jack

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Turner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Murphy, Paul

      Wallace, James

      Nellist, Dave

      Walley, Joan

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Patchett, Terry

      Wilson, Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Winnick, David

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Prescott, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wray. Jimmy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Randall, Stuart

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Reid, Dr John

      NOES

      Adley. Robert

      Bowis, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Alexander, Richard

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Allason, Rupert

      Bright, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Amos, Alan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Burns, Simon

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Butler, Chris

      Atkins, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baldry, Tony

      Cash, William

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Chapman, Sydney

      Beggs, Roy

      Chope, Christopher

      Bendall, Vivian

      Churchill, Mr

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Benyon, W.

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Colvin, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Conway, Derek

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Couchman, James

      Bos well, Tim

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Peter

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Curry, David

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      325

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Dicks, Terry

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knox, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Latham, Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Evennett, David

      Lilley, Peter

      Favell, Tony

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lord, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Franks, Cecil

      Madel, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Maginnis, Ken

      French, Douglas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fry, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Gale, Roger

      Maples, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marland, Paul

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gregory, Conal

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Grist, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hague, William

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hannam, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Mudd, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Harris, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Norris, Steve

      Hill, James

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hind. Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Page, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      Paice, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunt, Rt. Hon. David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Portillo, Michael

      Irvine, Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Price, Sir David

      Jack, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jackson, Robert

      Rathbone, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Redwood, John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Key, Robert

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rost, Peter

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Knapman, Roger

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      326

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thorne, Neil

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Tracey, Richard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trimble, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shersby, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sims, Roger

      Viggers. Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Speed, Keith

      Ward, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watts, John

      Squire, Robin

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Steen, Anthony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wilshire, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stokes, Sir John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Sumberg, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Summerson, Hugo

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 4

      RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
      '—(1) The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of enabling persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice to become aware of the implications of their decisions on the elimination of racial discrimination.
      (2) Publication under subsection (1) above shall be effected in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the information to the attention of the persons concerned.'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Labour Members accept that there is no dispute across the Dispatch Box about the principle that we hope to demonstrate and enshrine in law. The Government may not wish to follow the course that we propose, but we accept without reservation that they, no less than the Opposition, want to ensure that courts take decisions free from racial prejudice and without even a hint of discrimination. Indeed, paragraph 1.16 of the White Paper says:
      "There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community or any other reason."
      I repeat that I know that the Government want to pursue that principle.
      I think that I can say without undue contention that we want to pursue that principle more effectively and actively than the Government seem prepared to do. I hope that it

      327
      can be pursued by a statement in law requiring courts to operate in a way that is non-discriminatory or prejudicial to any race or group.
      The amendment that would have effected that proposition has not been called, but the principle underlying our intention is in new clause 4, which seeks to provide authoritative, undisputed and indisputable information on the way in which courts behave, in the belief that, if evidence showed prejudice or discrimination in the judicial system, the Government would act on it, or perhaps before they did so the courts would say, "The fears are justified, so we must mend our ways in advance of legislation."
      7.15 pm
      I have little doubt that the operation of the courts is such that black and Asian British people are more likely to receive a custodial sentence than their white counterparts convicted of equivalent or identical crimes. Almost all the evidence points to that conclusion. In 1985, 12·5 per cent. of our prison population came from ethnic minorities. In 1989, 16 per cent. of the prison population were black and Asian British. The figures for women were 24 per cent. in 1985 and 29 per cent. in 1989. However, only 5 per cent. of the population are black and Asian British.
      It is theoretically possible to argue that black and Asian British people are imprisoned more than their proportion of the population would warrant simply because they offend more frequently and seriously and therefore incur custodial sentences more frequently than their white contemporaries, but none of the evidence supports that. A Home Office survey found no discrimination in sentencing policy, but it certainly did not confirm the view that black and Asian British people go to prison more frequently because they commit more offences or because they commit more serious offences.
      Members of the ethnic minorities entering prison have, on average, fewer previous convictions than their white counterparts. They are substantially less likely to be remanded on bail than their white counterparts; but, having been remanded, they are much more likely to be acquitted of all offences than their white counterparts. None of the evidence suggests that they commit crimes more frequently, but most of it suggests that they suffer from discrimination.
      I do not know whether that discrimination stems from the behaviour of juries or of judges, or whether it is overt or unconscious. I know only that the evidence of the statistics—I shall either entertain or bore the House with more of them later—is that ethnic minorities are more likely to be sent to prison without due cause than their white contemporaries.
      A Home Office study, "Sentencing Practice in the Crown Courts", found that there was no racial discrimination in sentencing. Since 1988, other studies on wider statistical bases reached the opposite conclusion. A study by West Yorkshire probation service found that 32 per cent. of white offenders, 44 per cent. of Afro-Caribbean offenders and 45 per cent. of Asian offenders were sent to prison for similar offences.
      The Middlesex probation service took an enormous sample of 8,000 men and women who were convicted and sentenced in Greater London. It found that, on conviction for assault, 50 per cent. of white defendants were given
      328
      custodial sentences, whereas 75 per cent. of black and Asian defendants were similarly sentenced. For burglary, 49 per cent. of white offenders were imprisoned, whereas the figure for black and Asian defendants was 64 per cent.
      Whatever else one might say about that evidence, it is impossible to disagree with the contention that there is a potential problem. No one reading those statistics could say, "There is no problem." Some people might say that it is not as great as the statistics suggest, or they may dispute the causes. New clause 4 is a modest attempt to deal with the problem. It simply asks for monitoring of statistics, which would enable us to be aware of the extent of the problem.
      I have no doubt that, were this Home Secretary in particular to judge that there was discrimination in sentencing, he would want to move against it. I look forward to hearing an explanation, but I am baffled as to why the Government oppose this course.
      Our great hope was that the Government would be in favour of a much more progressive point of view—enshrining in law the obligation of the courts to act in a non-discriminatory and non-prejudicial way. That was the subject of an argument between the previous Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, and me on Second Reading. I told him that I believed that the Home Office had prepared new clauses that would put this idea into effect, but Lord Waddington insisted that that was not so. He agreed that the Home Office had considered that possibility and discussed it with a variety of organisations, but said that it had not been able to provide an adequate new clause to give that effect.
      We provided such a new clause—unfortunately, we cannot debate it tonight—and the Minister of State said:
      "I shall look sympathetically at the proposal."
      The Minister went further, and said:
      "It is likely that further consideration will persuade me of the merits of the new clause."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 December 1990; c. 92–103.]
      We shall never know whether that further consideration would have persuaded the right hon. Gentleman of the merits, because we cannot move the new clause. If he were as good as his word and were prepared to go all the way and accept a new clause that specified that courts must not behave in a prejudiced or discriminatory manner, I cannot imagine that he would not go halfway and agree to a new clause that provided the statistics that would enable us to know whether courts behave in that way.
      At column 94 of the Committee Hansard, the Minister again expressed his sympathy for that view. He gave my colleagues the impression—perhaps they misjudged him—that he would support the measure. Perhaps what we read in the newspapers is wrong and the Minister intends to support it.
      If this measure does not become law, there will be two results. According to the evidence, there will be a continuation of sentencing policy which means that a black or Asian British citizen is more likely—at least in some courts—to go to prison than his white counterpart. There will also be a deep, and in my view justified, suspicion among the black and Asian British that, although there may be statements of good intentions about their being citizens with equal rights who must be treated identically to everyone else, when the time comes to put those good intentions into force, the "establishment" flinches and does not take the necessary steps. I use the

      329
      word "establishment" because no one will doubt that, if the Government resist the new clause, in a sense they will be resisting it on behalf of the judiciary.
      Sir Antony Buck: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. What information does he think it is expedient to provide to enable those purposes to be fulfilled? I do not know what he wants published. I can think only of publication of information that would exacerbate racial prejudice, rather than the reverse.
      Mr. Hattersley: There should be publication of the type of information obtained in individual court areas and probation areas by reputable statistical methods, but that information has not been comprehensive.
      In the Middlesex probation area, 49 per cent. of white defendants go to prison for burglary offences, compared with 64 per cent. of black and Asian defendants. Such information should be available for the whole country. As we said when we argued for a sentencing council, since much discrimination is unintentional, if those presiding over one court discovered from the evidence provided by the Home Office statistics that they were discriminating against Asian or black citizens, they would cease to do so.
      We all know that much of the discrimination faced by the black and Asian British is not intentional in the sense that a magistrate says, "This man is black, therefore he is wicked. I shall send him to prison." There is a general aura of discrimination, and a prejudicial act takes place without magistrates knowing that they are behaving in a prejudicial way. If we draw that to the attention of decent people—I am sure that most magistrates and justices are decent people—they would want to rectify the situation. That is our intention.
      Mr. Janman: If the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions about the statistics are correct and those statistics were produced, would he want the more liberal sentences given to the whites increased or would he want the harsher sentences given to the blacks and browns decreased? The right hon. Gentleman would have to choose one or the other.
      Mr. Hattersley: It is not a question whether my assumptions are correct; it is a matter of my figures, which are correct. The hon. Gentleman can draw what assumptions he likes from the figures, but they are not in dispute.
      My answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which I have a sneaking suspicion he thought was a trick, is the answer that the Government and the Opposition would give: there are some crimes, the most severe ones, for which severe sentences are appropriate; there are other crimes, the less severe ones, for which custodial sentences are not appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman must know if he thinks for a moment, it is not possible for anyone who wants to deal seriously with these matters to say, "I want the severity of all sentences increased," or, "I want the severity of all sentences decreased." That is not a serious question. If the hon. Gentleman has a serious question to ask me, I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. With the greatest respect, this is a serious point. I am not talking about different offences. I am saying that for any one given offence—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned
      330
      burglary—if the assumption behind the statistics is correct, to have consistency irrespective of colour, either those who are sentenced to short sentences because they are white should have their sentences increased across the board, or vice versa for non-white people. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is drawing broad conclusions from statistics. He says that one must draw a conclusion either way as to which sentences will be increased and which will not. He cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to detain the House much longer, but I shall try to explain the position. I do not know the length of the sentences of those men and women sent to prison; I know the facts of their sentences. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the same example that I have given him twice. We know that, in the Middlesex probation area, 49 per cent. of the whites convicted of burglary went to prison, compared with 64 per cent. of black and Asian citizens. I do not know for how long they went to prison. Can anyone argue that that inconsistency is right? Some of the white defendants who went to prison may have been sentenced for too long or for too short a time. Perhaps the same happened to the blacks. I am asking for equal treatment of the races. I do not know how one can possibly argue against that, but I shall let the hon. Member for Thurrock try.
      Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I admit that I slightly misunderstood what he said, but my logic still applies, albeit on a slightly different point. Once the statistics were published, would the right hon. Gentleman conclude that more white offenders who committed burglaries should be sent to prison or that fewer black or brown offenders committing burglaries should be sent to prison?
      Mr. Hattersley: The only way in which criminal justice can work is by allowing judges discretion. Most judges will want to exercise that discretion in a non-prejudiced and non-racial way. By giving them these statistics, we shall enable them to do that. We are doing no more and no less than that. I say "no less" because this measure is vital, for two reasons. It is vital for some individuals who would not be in prison if they were white. It is important in terms of the human feelings, obligations and decency towards individual cases. It is vital also in terms of the declaration that the House makes.
      I repeat that I have no doubt that the Government's intentions are little different from the Opposition's intentions in this particular. However, very often in such matters, it is not intentions that matter most, but putting those intentions into practical effect. That is what the new clause will do, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Lawrence: What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about his justification for the new clause is a serious allegation against the judiciary and is utterly without foundation. I have been practising in courts for 29 years——
      Mr. Alun Michael: Good God.
      Mr. Lawrence: I do not know the age of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael),

      331
      who said "Good God" with some disbelief. I do not suppose that he has been practising in our courts for 29 years.
      Mr. Michael: As the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have an interest in the matter, I am 47. I was a magistrate from 1971 until entering this place. I also worked in a community that had a considerable mix of ethnic minorities and I know how well-founded are the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
      Mr. Lawrence: If there is any merit in what the hon. Gentleman says, he must have worked in one of the few disgraceful courts in this country. My experience—I repeat that it is pretty considerable, not only in higher courts but in magistrates courts—is that there is no basis whatsoever in the allegation that members of our judiciary make decisions according to racial bias.
      Mr. Hattersley: It is the hon. and learned Gentleman's habit to proceed by assertion, but, looking at the figures that I have given, to what does he attribute the vast discrepancy in sentencing within ethnic groups?
      Mr. Lawrence: I shall refer to that matter in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall refer to it.
      We have had consistent criticism—I do not mean from Opposition Members, although it may include some of them—that our judiciary is middle-class white. It is my experience that, if anything, middle-class intellectuals are so careful of not being thought to be biased or not allowing themselves to be biased in any way against blacks, browns or any under-privileged group in our society that they have a propensity to reduce—[Interruption.] I am answering the point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is busy talking. I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman is showing any discourtesy, but it is an important matter. He asked me a question and I shall proceed to answer it.
      I do not doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman's statistics are presented by certain organisations. By that I mean no discredit to such organisations, but I have no doubt that the purpose of their research is to see whether they can establish some kind of racial discrimination. However, one of those statistics shows that more black or brown people are kept in custody on remand than whites. There is a perfectly logical and factual explanation for that, and it has nothing to do with racial bias.
      When considering bail for burglary or a serious offence such as assault in particular, a judge must consider whether the accused is likely to turn up for his trial. The judge must consider whether the person has a fixed address, whether he is in work and whether he can provide a surety. The unfortunate fact—again this point is often made by the right hon. Gentleman in home affairs debates, and nobody deplores it more than I do—is that there are areas in which there is high unemployment for black people. That may be discriminatory; I do not doubt it. However, I challenge the allegation that there is discrimination by the judiciary. Being unemployed, having no fixed address and not having people to be sureties—in other words, not being able to conform with the statutory requirements for the granting or refusal of bail—have
      332
      nothing to do with racial discrimination by the courts. However, they have everything to do with the fact that the necessary requirements, which must be satisfied before a court grants bail for any serious offences, are not complied with. That may be through no fault of the person involved, but because of circumstances which, if there were any other rule, would make the pursuance of justice impracticable. That explains at least one of the statistics.
      I now give the right hon. Gentleman an anecdote. I recall having trouble from time to time considering what is the appropriate sentence for coloured people—I include black and brown people—who have been unco-operative with their probation officers. They are remanded to see the probation service and, for whatever reason—there may be many—they are unco-operative. The probation service wants to ask them questions that they do not want to answer. It is very difficult for a sentencer who has in mind doing something with the offender that will stop him going to prison for however short a period if that person is totally unco-operative with the one person who can help him—the probation officer.
      I recall several cases in which people who are not white have made matters much worse for themselves because they will not co-operate with their probation officer. We are talking only about differences between reasonably small percentage points, even given the fact that those figures are accurate and explain something.
      The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman says is that there is some deep-rooted racism in our judiciary which causes judges to sentence coloured people more harshly or to sentence them to prison, when that is necessary. But that cannot happen accidentally. It must be deliberate discrimination. It is the judge saying, "This man is black or brown, so I must treat him harshly". If this is what happens—and I believe that there would have to be deliberate discrimination in our courts—what on earth is the use of a new clause that requires information to be given to sentencers so that they should be aware of the implications of their decisions on the elimination of racial discrimination? That could be justified only on the basis that such discrimination is inadvertent, that it happens accidentally and that, if only those wicked sentencers knew a bit more about the implications of their decisions, they would refrain from doing so. I cannot see that that can possibly be so. The new clause would have no effect at all.
      I quite understand that raising the point gives the right hon. Gentleman the credit for drawing attention again in this great Chamber of Parliament to the wicked state of society in which our judiciary and others are racially discriminatory. However, the new clause would actually achieve nothing. Discrimination in our courts cannot be accidental. It must be deliberate and those who are deliberately discriminating would not pay two minutes' attention to any such information.
      I make that point merely on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is such discrimination. But I utterly reject it from my experience. It is not true. It does not happen. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a myth, not a fact. He should not be supported on a new clause that gives effect to a myth.
      Mr. Archer: At the risk of shocking some of my hon. Friends, I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) did not serve with us in Committee. Had he done so, he might well have made a speech disagreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member

      333
      for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but I do not think that he would have made the speech that he has just made, and I do not believe that we shall hear such a speech from the Minister. It is true that the Minister rejected our proposals in Committee largely, as I understood it, because he does not believe in "declarations" in legislation, which we were then proposing. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. Declarations do not often help very much, but they are not what we are now proposing.
      We are now proposing to start from two propositions which I hope command universal support in the House. The first is that everyone should be equal before the law. The second is that that is manifestly not the case at the moment. On any showing, if people from ethnic minorities represent 5 per cent. of the general population and 16 per cent. of the prison population, those figures cannot be dismissed as a possible margin of error or as statistical flexibility. They must compel us to look for the reason for the difference.
      The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, "If we discover that there is some kind of discrepancy, what do we do? Do we sentence black people more lightly or white people more heavily?" No, we should ask ourselves the reason for the discrepancy. That is all that the Opposition are seeking.
      Several reasons have been suggested. One was explored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook a moment ago and was raised in Committee when we were asked whether black people commit more offences than white people or whether they commit more offences of a particular kind. The answer is no, for the reason that my right hon. Friend gave. People from the ethnic minorities who receive custodial sentences have fewer previous convictions than people from the white majority. However, supposing that that were the reason, should it not make us want to know the reason, in turn, for that? Should we not want to know the factors which make it happen? Supposing black people do commit more offences—if young people from the minority groups are unemployed, it is possible that in some areas they are short of money, have time on their hands and a chip on their shoulder because they are unemployed, and those are all factors which might lead people to commit more offences, but we know that that is not the explanation.
      In a throwaway line, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook asked whether juries are discriminatory. That is not the answer either, because we are considering the proportion of convicted people, which is where the discrepancy arises.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that we are saying that there is conscious discrimination by the courts. I have never heard my right hon. Friend say that, I have never said it, and I do not believe it to be the case.
      Mr. Lawrence: That was the implication.
      Mr. Archer: No, my right hon. Friend did not imply that.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify the point. I was saying that, in our society, discrimination has to be deliberate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has to be deliberate for a judge to discriminate because he, above all others, must hold the scales of justice equal. He is trained
      334
      to do that, and that is why he has been appointed. He is experienced in doing that, and that is why he has the respect of his peers. If there is any discrimination, the judge will know about it, and it will be deliberate. That was the point that I was trying to make.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Archer: There are two reasons why the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong, but I begin by declaring an interest. Some of my best friends are judges—[Interruption.] That is quite literally true in my case. I have great respect for our judiciary, which I think is probably among the best in the world, but I do not think that our judges and recorders are perfect. From time to time, all of us fall into error.
      I should like to give two examples of the traps into which we can all fall. First, we are sometimes guilty of cultural misunderstandings on both sides of the cultural divide. I gave an example in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Burton may be sitting as a recorder. Before him in the dock is an Afro-Caribbean who is chewing. I do not know the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on chewing, but he might very well think, "This chap is showing disrespect for the court." In fact, the youth may be doing nothing of the sort. He may be behaving perfectly normally and it would not have occurred to him that he might be showing disrespect. If he is told to stop chewing, he will have a stereotypical view of the hon. and learned Gentleman as somebody out of the last century. I make no further comment on that.
      There are many cultural misunderstandings. I know members of the judiciary who do not like young men with dreadlocks. That is a failure to meet culturally. The problems are exacerbated when there is a generation divide as well as a cultural divide. However fair we try to be, some of us may have at the back of our minds the thought, "Here is somebody who is not taking his offence seriously and who is not even trying to show respect for the court." In fact, the defendant may be doing no such thing.
      My second example is similar, but not quite the same. I refer to the trap of the stereotype. I related in Committee that my wife, who is a magistrate, recently had occasion to read a probation report, one sentence of which read:
      "When I discovered that he was Irish, I inquired whether he had a drink problem."
      I am certain that that probation officer was not trying to be difficult and that he or she did not have anything against Irish people. The probation officer was probably trying to be helpful.
      Another example can be found in one of the earliest prosecutions under the Race Relations Act 1976. I refer to the Alexander case, in which the discrimination arose from a report written at an early stage in the prison history of the young man concerned, which read:
      "He is an arrogant person who is suspicious of staff and totally anti-authority. He has been described as a violent man with a very large chip on his shoulder which he will find great difficulty in removing. He shows the anti-authoritarian arrogance that seems to be common in most coloured inmates."
      I cannot believe that the prison officer who wrote that was consciously being discriminatory. He believed that to be part of the facts of life and of the world in which he lived. If we can learn that such things need putting right, we shall have learnt something worth while.
      I hope that the Judicial Studies Board may do something about this problem. My right hon. Friend the

      335
      Member for Sparkbrook was asked who will publish the statistics when we have them. One useful publication would be the bulletin that the Judicial Studies Board circulates to the hon. and learned Member for Burton and myself—because all recorders receive it, as do judges. The bulletin makes us think. A number of useful articles in it have caused me to think about things that I was doing wrong without realising it. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the board is considering what can be done about magistrates in terms of racial awareness.
      I do not see why that should not be extended to the judiciary. I do not believe that the judges would feel that their dignity was at stake. If a judge felt that, and felt that he could never be guilty of falling into such traps, he would be saying that he was more perfect than the vast majority of the population. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Burton is muttering. I was about to say to him that there is a third reason that we must examine. It relates to the matter about which he was speaking—periods spent in custody on remand.
      In answer to a parliamentary question on 30 October 1987, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)—who, I hope, will be answering the debate—gave a breakdown of people in custody on remand who were subsequently acquitted. Among white defendants, 3·9 per cent. were acquitted. For Chinese, Arab and what the Home Office described as people of mixed origins, the figure was 6·8 per cent. For those from the Indian sub-continent the figure was 7·2 per cent. For Afro-Caribbeans, it was 7·5 per cent.
      One factor which may give rise to that difference is homelessness, to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred. It is probably true that there is a higher rate of homelessness among the ethnic minorities. That does not mean that we do not have to address the problem. It does not mean that, once we have recognised that, we can go to sleep on it. One thing that could be done is to produce more bail hostels. I fully recognise that the Home Office is trying to do that. When such hostels are produced, we may again need to have regard to ethnic factors, particularly among women prisoners. It seems that a much higher proportion of women from the ethnic minorities spend time on remand in custody. They may need single sex hostels, again because of cultural factors.
      Another reason which may lead to fewer coloured people being given bail is that a higher proportion of them may be unemployed. If people are unemployed, their advocate cannot use the argument that if they are taken into custody they stand to lose their job. That is another possible factor.
      Lastly, at the risk of repeating what I have said before, if we want to reduce crime—which is the purpose of all our debates on the Bill—we must obtain the confidence and sympathy, not of Members of Parliament or even members of the judiciary, but of peer groups. The strongest factor which influences a young Afro-Caribbean male in a certain area of London to remain within the law is not what the hon. and learned Member for Burton or I may say, but what his peer group thinks. If we can persuade other young Afro-Caribbeans that the law is fair and that we are trying to administer it in an undiscriminatory way, we may
      336
      capture their approval for what we seek to do. That would be more effective than any other single step that we could take.
      If the information for which we ask stimulates us to think—I understand that the Minister approved of that in Committee—the purpose of our debate will have been achieved. That purpose is to reduce crime, and it is a matter in which a little thought can pay many dividends.
      Mr. John Patten: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whose contributions to these criminal justice debates will be sorely missed when he is no longer a Member of the House. He is right that we need more bail hostels for women. The first one was opened a few weeks ago by the Griffin Society. I was there for the opening. I agree with him, too, that it is important to do more for women who have mental problems and need hostel accommodation and perhaps long-stay care.
      I ask the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to treat with care the apparent disproportion of women from ethnic minorities who are on remand. If he examines the figures closely, he will find that they include a large number of women who have allegedly carried drugs into the country from west African and other countries and are awaiting trial. That particularly small sample of women on remand is, alas, biased by the large numbers of women who bring in drugs. We hope to put up warning posters at airports in Nigeria and other countries to warn women not to do so and what they will face when they come here.
      I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said in his introductory remarks. He said that both sides of the House shared the same aim. There is no dispute about that. He gave a fair analysis of the current position and the difficulty of drawing on all the published literature, including that which did not always support his argument. That echoed the long, helpful and constructive discussions that we had in Committee. All the members of the Committee were clear about the need for fairness and the avoidance of discrimination in the criminal justice system. I made clear in those debates the Government's firm commitment to achieving that essential fairness. I shall not repeat it because it would be otiose to do so.
      In Committee, I gave a long list of all the fairly recent changes that we have made in the way in which we collect information about ethnic background in the probation service, the prison service and elsewhere. A formidable amount of material is now available. Again, I shall not take the time of the House to itemise it all. It is on the record.
      I entirely appreciate the spirit in which new clause 4 was moved. The proposal was discussed in some detail in Committee and I said then that I was sympathetic to it. It is always helpful for people to have good information available which they can use in making their decisions, whether in economics, politics or sentencing. Making information available cannot be a bad thing. I am in favour of more information being available.
      Information of the type envisaged by the proposal in new clause 4, including the variation in sentencing patterns, can be instructive. It certainly makes one ask some questions. Whether we are dealing with the ethnic, sex or age breakdown of categories of offenders, we see wide variations in the sentences given. That makes us ask

      337
      why the variations occur. There is nothing wrong with having that information available and there is nothing wrong with asking those questions. Such information is useful. The Home Office already publishes a great deal of such information and I can see the merits of pulling together in one publication much of the information that we already publish and issuing it annually so that one does not have to ferret round in probation, prison, police, arrest and other statistics. If the information is available, people can make of it what they want.
      Non-discrimination is important. That is why I am broadly in favour of publishing more information. However, I should like to do it in a slightly different way, which the House may like to consider. That is encompassed in the starred Government amendments to clause 77 which will be debated on Monday and will certainly be voted on.
      The principle which the Government amendments promote is rather similar to those that underlie new clause 4. We have already said that the cost of sentencing decisions needs to be published every year and that seems to have been widely welcomed. Under the new provisions in the amendments to clause 77, the Home Secretary will be under a duty to publish such information as he or she sees fit on the experience of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.
      The Government amendments differ from new clause 4 in two important respects. First, they extend the proposed publication of information beyond the issue of race alone to include sex and any other relevant information. That will probably give a wider and more comprehensive picture. Secondly, the amendments make clear the importance of the need to avoid discrimination in the criminal justice system. I have no doubt that any unfair discrimination by those working in the criminal justice system would be unlawful—I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on that.
      The legal position is clear and for that reason we see no merit in a provision that puts a duty on sentencers and others not to discriminate. That would add nothing to the present legal position. It is right that a provision in the Bill, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should refer to the need for all those involved in the criminal justice system, not just sentencers, to avoid discrimination. That approach will help to ensure the confidence of all sections of the community in the fairness and impartiality of the criminal justice system.
      In the light of my remarks and in view of our amendments to clause 77, I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not press new clause 4 to a Division. I hope that he will give a fair wind to our amendments when we vote on them on Monday.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: We shall undoubtedly give a fair wind to the amendments on Monday, but just to demonstrate our enthusiasm for them we shall divide the House tonight.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 280.

      Division No. 72]

      [8 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Allen, Graham

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Alton, David

      338

      Anderson, Donald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Home Robertson, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Barron, Kevin

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bellotti, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Ingram, Adam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Boateng, Paul

      Kennedy, Charles

      Boyes, Roland

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Bradley, Keith

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Leighton, Ron

      Buckley, George J.

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Caborn, Richard

      Lewis, Terry

      Callaghan, Jim

      Litherland, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McAllion, John

      Cartwright, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clay, Bob

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clelland, David

      McFall, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cousins, Jim

      McNamara, Kevin

      Crowther, Stan

      McWilliam, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dixon, Don

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dobson, Frank

      Martlew, Eric

      Doran, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Meacher, Michael

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michael, Alun

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eastham, Ken

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mullin, Chris

      Fatchett, Derek

      Murphy, Paul

      Faulds, Andrew

      Nellist, Dave

      Fearn, Ronald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fraser, John

      Parry, Robert

      Fyfe, Maria

      Patchett, Terry

      Galbraith, Sam

      Pendry, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      George, Bruce

      Prescott, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gordon, Mildred

      Randall, Stuart

      Gould, Bryan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Graham, Thomas

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Rooney, Terence

      Grocott, Bruce

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hardy, Peter

      Rowlands, Ted

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Doug

      Short, Clare

      339

      Skinner, Dennis

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Spearing, Nigel

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Strang, Gavin

      Worthington, Tony

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Turner, Dennis

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Walley, Joan

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Allason, Rupert

      Dover, Den

      Amos, Alan

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fallon, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Favell, Tony

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forth, Eric

      Benyon, W.

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Franks, Cecil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      French, Douglas

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grist, Ian

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Ground, Patrick

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butler, Chris

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hannam, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Cash, William

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayward, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Colvin, Michael

      Hill, James

      Conway, Derek

      Hind, Kenneth

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Holt, Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Patrick

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Couchman, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cran, James

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Curry, David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Hunter, Andrew

      340

      Irvine, Michael

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, John

      Janman, Tim

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Key, Robert

      Rost, Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Knox, David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Latham, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sims, Roger

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lilley, Peter

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Lord, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Squire, Robin

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maclean, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      Madel, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mans, Keith

      Stokes, Sir John

      Marland, Paul

      Sumberg, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Summerson, Hugo

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mates, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thorne, Neil

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Trimble, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Viggers, Peter

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Mudd, David

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Ward, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Watts, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Whitney, Ray

      Norris, Steve

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wilshire, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wolfson, Mark

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Yeo, Tim

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Portillo, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Price, Sir David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      MINIMUM SENTENCES
      '(1) That the minimum sentence for any offender convicted under—

      (a) Section 37 Schedule 2 part 1 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 shall be 10 years.

      (b) Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Firearms Act 1968 and section 10 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be seven years.

      (c) Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be five years.

      (d) Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be five years.

      (e) Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be four years.

      (f) Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be three years.

      (g) Section 7 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be two years.

      (2) That the minimum sentences laid down in (e) (f) and (g) shall not necessarily apply to first or second conviction.
      (3) That the minimum sentences defined in this section shall apply to section 4(i)(b) of the Criminal Attempts Act 198 1.'—[Mr. Janman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Janman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Before I speak in support of the new clause, I shall define what it means. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that the wording of the new clause, although it does not say much to the layman, is required in order for it to be included in your selection.
      8.15 pm
      The new clause states that, for some offences, we should start to introduce in Great Britain the concept of minimum sentences. The crimes referred to under subsection (1) include: (a) rape; (b) serious firearms offences involving the intent to use that firearm to injure or conduct criminal activities or while trespassing and for aggravated burglary; (c) robbery; (d) grievous bodily harm; (e) burglary; (f) assault; and (g) theft. Subsection (3) applies the same minimum sentences (a) to (g) to attempts to commit the same offences.
      I shall make the case for the concept of minimum sentences, although I admit that the individual sentences that I have proposed for different crimes are merely my subjective opinion and reflect only my opinion and my mood when I sat down and drafted the new clause. I do not think that I was in a particularly harsh mood when I did so. I admit that the minimum sentences that I have proposed may riot be perfect and are subjective. The reason for introducing the new clause is that we must now enter uncharted waters in our attempts to satisfy the public that the House is serious about doing something about the ever-increasing wave of crime enveloping this country.
      I shall take the liberty of giving examples of crimes of which I have been at the receiving end in the past six months. At the beginning of last September my then wife-to-be had her house burgled. In the same autumn my stepson, as he is now—a 15-year-old schoolboy—and his friend were held up at knife-point by a gang of six black youths. The purpose of the mugging was to take my stepson's jacket away, which was successfully accomplished.
      When I arrived at the car park at the port of Newhaven on the night before new year's eve at the end of last year, I found that my car had two front wheels missing. To cut a long story short, the wheels were retrieved. Exactly a
      342
      month to the day after that incident, the front passenger window of my car was smashed. An attempt had been made to take the phone out of my car. The attempt was unsuccessful, but a considerable amount of damage was caused.
      For one family unit, which we became after 29 September last year, to be on the receiving end of four serious—not petty—incidents of criminal activity in less than six months is either a remarkable coincidence or time is catching up with me and I am now suffering because I have not been on the receiving end of much criminal activity for the other 33 years of my life. Perhaps the number of incidents reflects the current state of the nation with regard to law and order and the amount of crime that seriously and adversely affects the daily lives of millions of citizens every year.
      Thankfully, the public understand that, however weak the Government are, the Opposition would be, and have consistently been, weaker when in government—I shall make my remarks in that context. We must now, almost out of a sense of frustration, take action that we may not have considered taking before—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said on new clause I. We should do so not just out of a sense of frustration, but out of a sense of duty because all reasonable avenues and options must be considered.
      I know—we touched on the subject when we debated new clause 1—that not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members have always taken the view that Parliament should not interfere with the flexibility of the judiciary. That view is well entrenched in the minds of many colleagues, but perhaps many of them have not taken time to reconsider or reflect on it as circumstances have changed and the crime rate has increased during our lifetime. However, they should reflect on it. Of course, Parliament interferes with the flexibility of the courts in many ways, the most obvious of which is that the House almost always sets a maximum sentence. If someone is given a term of life imprisonment, life itself is the parameter beyond which the court cannot stray, but for many other crimes the House has told courts that they cannot exceed certain sentences. Therefore, it is quite logical for the House to set minimum parameters for the courts as well.
      Sir John Wheeler: The whole House will have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend and his family for the misfortunes that have befallen them. His example of criminality perhaps serves to illustrate how we should redouble our efforts in the analysis and prevention of crime rather than on sentencing the minority of offenders who are apprehended. My hon. Friend's point about interfering with the judiciary is crucial. It is not a question of interfering with the judiciary; it is a question of practicality. My hon. Friend may know that there have been attempts in previous generations to impose minimum sentences with which the courts would have to comply. The result in the jury trial cases to which my hon. Friend refers has been that juries have been confronted by the necessity of deciding, on occasions, whether to convict or to acquit, and they have acquitted if convicting meant that a minimum sentence would have to be imposed. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that problem.
      Mr. Janman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Of course, we cannot rely on a single panacea to solve the problem of ever-increasing crime. I agree that we should carefully consider how efficiently the considerable resources that we now give to the police are used. Conservative Members tend sometimes to shower praise on our thin blue line a little over-enthusiastically instead of applying to it the critical eye that we apply to all our other nationalised industries. We need to examine how efficiently the police are managed, how they use their resources and how good they are at delivering the results that we expect.
      I do not toss aside lightly my hon. Friend's other point, which would involve the House in giving more consideration to how to implement minimum sentences in certain circumstances and for certain offences. Earlier I said that, because my new clause covers several different offences, the suggested minimum sentences may not be practical. Some of them may be too harsh and might exacerbate the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). Nevertheless, I want to initiate a debate on the idea of minimum sentencing. If we ever adopted the practice there would be many bridges to cross and difficulties to deal with. This House represents the British people and it is our job to identify what is happening in the country and what people think about ever-increasing crime. So it is up to the House, not the unelected judiciary, to decide the broad parameters of sentencing policy.
      At some point we must seriously consider having a stab at solving this problem, so that if people carry out certain types of crime they will know that they face a minimum punishment. At present many people commit crimes without the vaguest idea of what may happen to them, and if they had a slightly more accurate view of the punishment that awaited them, some would stop committing crimes.
      I have already admitted that some of the minimum sentences that I have suggested may be too harsh—although some of my colleagues may think them too lenient—but the new clause is an attempt to outline my general philosophy. It includes crimes of a fairly serious nature such as assault, burglary and theft, and I have said that I do not think that minimum sentences should necessarily be imposed for first or second convictions. For this middle category of crimes I would not want to deny courts the choice between imposing a severe sentence on and doing nothing to first or second offenders. That part of my new clause, at least, acknowledges the genuine concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have spoken privately about this subject and I believe that he understands my position. We can argue about what minimum sentences should be. If we impose them, other changes in the law may have to be made. If, for instance, my minimum sentence for rape became law we should need to change the law so that it could differentiate between premeditated and unpremeditated rape. I want a minimum sentence only for premeditated rape—for cases in which it is clear that the accused was not led on or did not misunderstand where the evening was leading. However, if someone jumps out from behind a wall and attacks and rapes a woman whom he has never seen before, motivated only by a wish to inflict great physical harm on her and to rape her against her will, I would have no compunction
      344
      about legislating to impose a minimum sentence on the offender in question. Whether it should be 10 years or less is a matter for argument.
      Neither the House nor the Government can afford to push aside anything that might help in the fight against crime. We need to start re-examining some of our past assumptions. If crime continues to rise, the House will have to set, for some cases, minimum parameters within which the judiciary will have to act.
      Mr. Maclennan: The House certainly sympathises with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) because of the disturbing experience of crime to which he and his family have been subjected. However, I regret that he saw fit to begin his remarks by suggesting that there were profound party differences about how to respond to crime, and that it could be assumed that the response of Opposition parties would be weaker. That kind of partisan attack does nothing to strengthen the response of Parliament to the acute problem to which he has drawn attention. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have different views, and within the hon. Member's own party there are different views on minimum sentences.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Janman: The only reason that I gave examples of what had happened to me and to my family was to show what is happening to others, not just to ask for sympathy, although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for extending it to me.
      The point that I tried to make about the difference between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side was not about minimum sentences as such; I understand that many Government Members would not agree with me on that. If we look at the Divisions on the Criminal Justice Bill 1988, however, and at the Divisions when we are asked to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act every two years, we will see the facts. However much I may feel that my own party is not strong enough on law and order, it is consistently and immeasurably stronger than the parties on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Maclennan: The test of measures that purport to deal with crime is not whether they are weak or strong but whether they are effective or ineffective. The hon. Member for Thurrock has not addressed that at all in promoting his amendment.
      There is another issue of principle that we cannot allow to be elided in this debate—the extent to which we want to usurp the judgment of those faced with crimes in the courts about the circumstances of the particular cases before them. Any one of the offences mentioned in the amendment covers a wide range of circumstances, and the gravity of those offences can vary considerably from case to case. It is not something that the House is in a position to judge.
      The hon. Member is quite right to say that the House should be concerned both about sentencing and about appropriate sentences; but we cannot foresee the circumstances facing individual judges in individual cases, so it is inappropriate to establish minimum sentences, which to some extent pre-empt the power of the courts to take account of circumstances which may mitigate the offence.

      345
      The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke of the House's willingness to accept a maximum sentence, and sought to equate maximum and minimum; but when one sets a maximum, one is limiting the power of the court to deprive individuals of their liberty, and it is proper for the House to seek to do that. It is not at all analogous with the circumstances in which one does precisely the reverse. The House is rightly concerned about the freedom of the subject, and wants to ensure that judges do not overstep the mark.
      Measures have been taken by the Government to enable the Attorney-General to seek to reverse too lenient sentences. I have some reservations about the wisdom of that course of action, but I am prepared to wait and see how it operates. It is a rather dangerous step to allow the Court of Appeal to review a sentence without having heard all the evidence before the original sentencer, and this latest move may prove to be a mistake; but I am at least prepared to give it a chance. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Thurrock has made out a case for departing from the very long established practice of the criminal justice system in not having minimum sentences.
      This approach to the amendment of our substantive law on crime shows what is wrong with our ability as a legislature to deal in a rational and coherent way with the framework of our criminal law. Too often we respond to public disquiet about a particular crime by suggesting that the penalty be increased or a new offence introduced, and we do it in isolation from the whole fabric of the criminal law. That is not the right way to proceed.
      The Law Commission has produced a draft codification of the criminal law which seeks to relate offences to one another in degree of gravity. If we were to take the hon. Member's objective seriously, which we should, the proper way to proceed would be for the House to take evidence on the proposed codification and to set up a pre-legislative committee to go through the details carefully, measuring the evidence for each offence. What we should not do is bring our subjective judgment to bear on particular offences, as the hon. Member for Thurrock has done, and then trade one off against the other, within the narrow scope of a limited number of offences.
      I realise that the hon. Member simply wished to raise the principle of minimum sentences, but his clause goes further and provides a degree of particularity; one is bound to take it at its face value. I welcome the opportunity that he has given us to discuss the matter. It should not go by without comment from anyone on the Opposition side of the House, because Conservative Back Benchers may sometimes reflect thinking that later emerges down the line from the Government Front Bench, and it would be extremely unfortunate if thinking along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock tonight were to emerge as the official line of the Conservative party or of the Government.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Government will consider seriously the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which he presented in a balanced and effective way. I want them to ask themselves whether it would help to curb crime if people had a clearer idea of what was likely to happen to them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock spoke at great length about his experience. I will mention what happened to me last night. I had a discussion with a young lady who had had no payment from income support for
      346
      over two weeks. Because she had no money, she explained to me, she had unfortunately had to steal things from shops. The reason for the non-appearance of the money was purely administrative: the payments had been sent to her previous address as the office had not got the new one. What interested me, however, was what she said:
      "I don't suppose they could do anything to me in these circumstances."
      The Minister may think that this is just a casual case. He has very kindly said that he will ask young people what they think would happen to them if they committed a crime; if he does, he will be rather surprised. At a youth club at which I spoke, the general view was that nothing happened on the first offence and that on the second offence one was likely to be promoted on to one of "those funny schemes". The Minister may think that that is nonsense, but a lot of people think this.
      What is the argument against having a civic sentence? We heard it with great clarity from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who said that judges' discretion would be interfered with. It is silly to try to make a principle out of this because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, there is already interference. He explained that there were some tables that gave the courts general guidance as to the most appropriate sentence from which they could depart in special circumstances.
      Secondly, the Government have taken upon themselves the power to appeal against sentences that they believe are too lenient. That is interference in future cases. Therefore, there is a case for doing something—anything—to give the potential offender clear guidance on what is likely to happen to him. I am sure that if we had such a system, there would be less crime.
      As I said when we debated new clause 1, the only evidence that we have is that on capital punishment, which shows overwhelmingly that when we had that deterrent it curbed not only murder but crimes involving the use of firearms. Since the abolition of capital punishment, there have been dramatic changes. There is the great unanswered question about why general crime doubled and murder did not increase while we still had capital punishment. I hope that the Government will think about that.
      A fair point has been made about cases where the circumstances are special—for example, when the person who had committed the crime had good reason for doing so, and we should be sympathetic to him. Would not it be possible to have standard sentencing, but to allow the judge to depart from that standard in cases with special circumstances, on the understanding that his determination could be subject to an appeal to a higher court? That escape clause would allow judges some discretion.
      The purpose of the new clause is not to put more people in prison for longer but to stop crime. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that an important principle is involved. The arguments against this are not as clear as people think. It is time that we had an experiment, bearing in mind the fact that the only evidence shows that our only mandatory sentence was effective and curbed crime.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was provoked into speaking by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who moved his new clause clearly and succinctly. He said that all his dreams of dealing with law and order in manifestos and party political pamphlets over 10 or 15 years had not become reality. Instead, the crime

      347
      rate had continued to rise. That ruined his argument that the Labour party was bad on law and order while the Conservative party was good. Whatever else, the crime rate does not show that. It is no respecter of political parties.
      In economic circles, the argument is that the Bank of England should be independent because the politicians do not get economic analysis right, so if we extend that argument, it would be better to leave it to somebody else to decide on crime because the politicians have not been good on law and order. It would be as well for the hon. Gentleman to get the facts right, because that would be a help in dealing with the crime rate.
      I do not know what it is like in Essex, but the people who suffer from the breakdown of law and order are those who live in inner cities—in areas such as the one that I represent—and who vote for my party and for me. The crimes that take place in Mayfair are different from those that take place in the inner cities. However, there is undoubtedly a problem.
      The hon. Member for Thurrock claimed that the Labour party opposed the Northern Ireland prevention of terrorism Act. I was in at the beginning of that Act, when the police were against it. I am in favour of legislation to deal with terrorism—I have to be because it has been part of my being for the past 20 years. That does not mean that I would not vote against, for example, the reintroduction of internment. However, that vote would not mean that I was in favour of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that one party is better on law and order than the other will do nothing to prevent crime.
      8.45 pm
      I do not believe that the judiciary is always right. Therefore, I cannot say that it would be wrong to interfere with sentencing. In recent years, I have been involved too much in dealing with miscarriages of justice. Sentencing is often wrong. There must be changes in the methods of collection of evidence by the police, in forensic procedures and in court procedures, and a better method of appeal than that to the Court of Appeal with so-called new evidence.
      Although in principle I do not disapprove of interfering with sentencing, I believe that if there is to be an independent judiciary, these are matters that it should decide. We should not be led by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who believes that all is lost and that all his dreams about dealing with law and order have failed, so we must limit the powers of the judiciary. He was wrong in the first instance in believing that he had got the answer and he is wrong to believe that his new clause, which interferes with the powers of the judiciary, is the answer.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), but as a practising member of the Bar for many years, I feel that judicial judgment is vital in many cases. Many hon. Members will agree that one cannot set minimum sentences even for serious offences because inevitably in some cases it will be necessary to be lenient. For example, the new clause says:
      "That the minimum sentence for any offender convicted under … Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be five years."
      348
      I have dealt with many cases of violence where the intention to commit grievous bodily harm was proved but the offence would not automatically attract five years.
      The big problem with minimum sentences is that discretion will be ratcheted up. The most minor offence will attract the most lenient sentence with the consequent difficulty that, above that, sentences become longer. It will not necessarily mean that the case will be dealt with justly and that is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice.
      Mr. Janman: I am disappointed that, almost uniquely, my hon. Friend does not agree with me. I believe right—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, because I am not a lawyer—that in some cases there are already minimum sentences. For example, certain categories of murder, of a child or of a police officer, or one involving weapons, attract a minimum sentence, laid down by the Home Secretary, of at least 20 years. The point that I was putting across earlier, which my hon. Friend is rather exaggerating, is that I do not wish to wipe out at a stroke, or even to inflict severe wounding on, the freedom of the courts and judicial flexibililty. I am simply saying that if we are serious about halting crime and providing a real deterrent we may have to have a reduction in that flexibility, albeit a minor one.
      Mr. Hind: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says.
      I want to take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I have not lost so much confidence in the judiciary that I feel that we need to impose this upon it. Judges look at each case on its merits. They assess the probation reports and decide from their experience what the sentence should be. The proposed new clause goes too far and is an unnecessary interference with judicial discretion and the independence of the courts. I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Sheerman: We oppose the new clause because it goes much too far. As I said many times in Committee, the Bill is a three-part measure. Part of it we agree with; the intentions of another part are good, although the ways of carrying out those intentions are not so good; the other third we oppose root and branch. The proposed new clause runs counter to all the proposals for a more progressive criminal justice system. I do not understand how the Government could accept it.
      It is always a pleasure to hear the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on these issues. Like him, I am pragmatic about the judiciary. Sometimes the judiciary gets it wrong and sometimes it gets it right. I do not have an ideological view about the judiciary. We have the right to criticise it and to change the law where necessary. In this case I agree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that a change is unnecessary. The new clause would run counter to the progressive parts of the Bill. Therefore, we hope that the motion will not be pressed to a vote.
      Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has stirred up an interesting debate. I think that he expected the debate to be short, as did other hon. Members, but he has lured a distinguished former Home Secretary and others into speaking. I congratulate him on that.
      The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to ensure that those who are convicted get their just deserts. That phrase is in the White Paper—alas, misspelt, but it is there. It is

      349
      a phrase which I used in an article which, to show my broad-mindedness, I published in The Guardian this morning—perhaps it also showed the broad-mindedness of The Guardian in publishing an article by a Tory Minister. I am happy to say that The Guardian spelt "deserts" properly throughout.
      I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and of others, expressed so fiercely in Committee, for victims and the importance of sending a clear signal to those who would commit serious and violent offences of the sort which concern my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock so much.
      As I explained when we debated new clause 1, it is right that the courts should have much discretion if they are to be able to continue to sentence justly in exceptional cases. On that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Undoubtedly cases will arise where there are strong mitigating factors and it would be wrong to penalise the offender heavily, if at all. If minimum sentences were set so low as to make allowance for such cases, it would render them meaningless and would give a false impression to the public. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock does not want to render sentences meaningless any more than does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Both want sentences to be meaningful, as is clear from their proposed new clause.
      If minimum sentences were set too high—the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has led him to the high end of the range—it could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. That is always one thing that worries me about minimum sentences. More serious offenders are being sentenced to much longer periods in gaol, and I welcome that, but the Government think it right to retain discretion at the lower end.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will be aware, the basis of that approach is that Parliament sets the maximum sentences and courts have discretion within the maximum. Of course, there are occasions when it is judged by the courts themselves that they have got sentences wrong. That is why the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which my hon. Friend was involved, gave a new power to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer back to the Court of Appeal sentences which were allegedly over-lenient. He has clone that on 24 occasions, and on 20 occasions the Court of Appeal has increased the sentences. That has been a substantial guide to judges in the lower courts.
      I hope that the use of the new power will go some way to allay my hon. Friend's concern. None the less, he has raised interesting and important points. He referred to sentencing practice in other western European countries. While I cannot advise the House to accept the new clause—I hope that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will consider withdrawing it—I think that it is important to collect more information about the effects of minimum sentences in other countries so that we can examine, in a way which neither he nor I have been able to today, the case for minimum sentences.
      With that undertaking, which I am happy to give to my hon. Friend, I hope that he will on consideration think it right to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Janman rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?
      Mr. Janman: We have had an interesting debate. I should like to make one or two comments on the speech of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I am complimented by the fact that he has taken time to listen to the debate and to react to what I said.
      I think that what the right hon. Gentleman said strengthens my case. He was right when he talked about whether we should have an independent Bank of England. He implied that over a 30 to 40-year period both parties in government have been unable to sustain not an overtight, but a disciplined monetary policy, although there are fine examples over a short period where that did not happen, such as in 1969 when the Labour Government had a balanced budget. It is interesting to note that some categories of crime are plateauing out, given the effects of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but on crime, too, neither party when in government has been able to change the trend, just as, with fine exceptions, they have been unable to have a disciplined monetary approach.
      This is the crux of my case. Every hon. Member, irrespective of his party, must observe the ever-increasing crime rate, which affects the very people whom the right hon. Gentleman cites. My constituency was once described—not by me—as "an inner-city area with trees". Most of the crime, which tends to be burglary and theft, takes place in the most municipalised areas, which are also the poorest areas—people robbing their neighbours down the road. In my view, that increases the need to take the matter seriously.
      I understand my right hon. Friend the Minister's position, and I am pleased to hear that he intends to investigate whether instances of minimum sentencing occur abroad, and whether they have a positive effect on the crime rate. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 6

      PERIODIC REVIEWS OF DETENTION
      'A prisoner whose case has been reviewed by the Board under section (Power to release life prisoners) or section 32(4) below and who has been refused release may apply to the Board for further review of his sentence—

      (a) on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the Board's decision refusing his release; and

      on the expiry of any subsequent period of 12 months.'.—[ Mr. Sheerman.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9 pm
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following:

    New Clause 7—
    Power to release life prisoners—
    '(1) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of a life prisoner to the Board for review as soon as the offender has served the punitive element of his sentence.
    (2) After consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and with the trial judge if available, the Board may direct the release of a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under subsection (1) above.
    (3) In determining whether to direct the release of a life prisoner, the Board shall have regard to—

    (a) the need to protect the public from serious harm from him; and

    (b) the desirability of preventing the commission by him of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation.

    (4) The Board may direct the release of a life prisoner under this section—

    (a) on licence; or

    (b) unconditionally.

    (5) Where the Board directs the release of a life prisoner on licence it may also direct the length of time for which the licence is to remain in force.
    (6) If the Board gives no direction as to the length of a licence under subsection (5) above, it shall review the licence—

    (a) before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of the Board's decision to release the offender on licence; and

    (b) before the expiry of any subsequent period of three years

    and shall on any such review either terminate the licence or direct the length of time for which it is to remain in force.
    (7) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner unconditionally as soon as his licence has ceased to be in force unless he has previously been recalled to prison under subsection (1) or (2) of section 32 below.
    (8) In this section "punitive element" means the sentence of imprisonment which the Crown Court, or on appeal the Court of Appeal, shall state in open court as being the sentence it would have passed if it had not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life, whether under requirement of law or otherwise.
    (9) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life.'.

    New Clause 8—
    Procedure of Board on review of life sentences—
    '(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules with respect to the making of applications to the Board under section (Periodic reviews of detention) above and to the proceedings of the Board in cases arising under that section and section (Power to release life prisoners) above.
    (2) Rules made under this section may in particular make provision—

    (a) for regulating the means by which information relevant to an application or review may be obtained by or furnished to the Board;

    (b) for enabling the Board to dispose of an application without a formal hearing where such a hearing is not requested by the applicant;

    (c) for regulating the person by whom an applicant may, if he so desires be represented for the purposes of his application;

    (d) for making available to an applicant copies of any documents obtained by or furnished to the Board in connection with his application, and a statement of the stubstance of any oral information so obtained or furnished, except where the Board considers it undesirable in the interests of justice to do so;

    (e) for requiring the Board, to furnish reasons for any decision given by it in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules;

    The following amendments: No. 71, in clause 26, page 19, line 18 at beginning insert
    'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies and.'
    No. 72, in page 19, line 21 after 'or', insert
    352
    'subject to section (Power to release life prisoners) and section (Periodic reviews of detention) below,'.
    No. 73, in page 19, line 23, at beginning insert
    'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies,'.
    No. 74, in page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
    No. 75, in page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
    No. 76, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
    No. 77, in clause 30, page 20, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
    No. 78, in clause 32, page 21, line 34, after 'recommended', insert 'or directed'.
    No. 79, in page 21, line 38, after 'recommendation', insert 'or direction'.
    No. 80, in page 22, line 5, after 'recommends', insert 'or directs'.
    No. 81, in clause 41, page 26, line 10, leave out `28(4)' and insert
    `(Power to release life prisoners (9))'.
    Mr. Sheerman: The new clauses and amendments seek to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell on 25 October 1990 in regard to life-sentence prisoners. We consider that judgment very important. We had expected the Government to use the Bill as a vehicle to bring them into line with it and we were very concerned when they found that they could not do so. The new clauses and amendments would bring the United Kingdom fully into line with the judgment. We think that important because this country, especially under the present Government, has a poor record with the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that more judgments have been made against us than against any other European Community member country and, in the case that I cited, every opportunity was provided for speedy compliance with the court's judgment.
    The court held that persons given a discretionary life sentence were entitled to have their sentences reviewed at the end of the tariff period and at periodic intervals thereafter. If they were released on licence and the licence was revoked, they were also entitled to have their re-detention reviewed by a court.
    The case follows an earlier British case, Weeks v. United Kingdom, decided on 2 March 1987, in which the court held for the first time that that principle applied. In the Weeks case, the court found that the Parole Board was an independent body but that its procedures were not sufficiently court-like and that it did not possess sufficient powers in respect of the sentences. Nor did it have the power to terminate the sentence if it formed the view that the personality disorder that had justified a life sentence had ended.
    Our new clauses would give the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of the sentence had been served. It would also allow the board to provide a periodic review of detention and would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules that would enable the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. The new clauses have the support of two highly distinguished organisations in the field of human rights, Justice and Liberty.
    In Committee, we argued long and hard about the role of the pressure groups—or interest groups—which have been quoted in support sometimes of one side of the argument, sometimes of the other; but it should be noted

    353
    that those two organisations, like many voices in the judiciary—and in another place—are strongly in favour of our proposals. It is also important that the Government accept the European Court's findings against this country and comply with its rulings.
    Our new clauses form a package. The first gives the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of a sentence has been served. At present, in every life sentence case, the judge sets the punitive element in a private communication with the Home Secretary.
    I just looked over my shoulder to see whether the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), was still with us. It is extraordinary that the offender should be unaware of the length of the period concerned. The new clause requires the trial judge to state the period in open court. It seems to us common sense—common humanity—for the prisoner who has been found guilty to know what that element of his sentence is. If the sentence is appealed against, the appeal court will be able to consider the punitive element and determine its length. It is ridiculous that a prisoner should not know how his sentence is composed.
    The European Court of Human Rights discussed at some length the distinction between the punitive and the security aspects of a life sentence. I quote from The Times Law Report on the case of Thynne:
    "In the court's view, each of the applicants was sentenced to life imprisonment because, in addition to the need for punishment, they were considered to be suffering from a mental or personality disorder and to be dangerous and in need of treatment …
    The court noted that the discretionary life sentence had clearly developed in English law as a measure to deal with mentally unstable and dangerous offenders. Such sentences were composed of both a punitive and a security element"—
    we understand that, and do not demur from it—
    "the latter being designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permitted the prisoner's release …
    The factors of mental instability and dangerousness were susceptible to change over the passage of time, and new issues of lawfulness could arise."
    Under the new clause, the Parole Board would review life sentence cases once the punitive part had been served and it would have the power to release the offender. In making its decision, it would have to have regard to the risk factor—the need to protect the public from harm and to prevent the commission of further offences. It would, of course, consider the personality factors that had led to the original imposition of the life sentence. The board would have power to release the prisoner on licence or to bring the sentence to an end by unconditional release. It could determine the length of the licence, but if it did not set a term, it would have to review the licence at intervals.
    New clause 6 deals with periodic reviews of detention. This, too, follows a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that a person serving a discretionary life sentence must be entitled to periodic review of the detention to see whether the factors in the prisoner's personality that gave rise to it still exist. It seems to be common humanity and common sense that if, over a long period, the personality of the prisoner changes—either under treatment or, as is often the case, without treatment—the circumstances of that prisoner may be adjudged, on the basis of independent psychiatric advice, to have changed. This matter was discussed in the debate
    354
    on a previous amendment. The European Court of Human Rights believes that in such cases review should be possible.
    New clause 8 deals with the procedure of the board on the review of life sentences. It would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules enabling the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. In other words, the court would have to meet the requirements of due process established in the convention, such as the right to representation, the right to bring evidence and to test the other side's evidence, and the right to ask the board to give reasons for its decision. It was the absence of such procedures that led the court, in the case of Weeks, as well as in the Thynne and other cases, to decide that the board could not be regarded as a court for the purposes of the convention. We believe that the Lord Chancellor should be given the ability to put that right.
    Finally, there is the amendment that would result in the omission of subsection (3) of clause 30. It would remove the provision that a licence must last for the life of the prisoner. This would also be consequential on the judgment. Once the personality factors have ceased to exist, the justification for the sentence ceases, and it becomes unlawful in terms of the convention. Therefore, the board must have power to set a period for the licence that is less than life.
    During the Committee stage we had a long debate on matters similar to these. The Minister will have noted that the amendments, as drafted, are not confined to discretionary life sentences. The House, too, will understand that. It is a deliberate decision on our part. This is what the European judgment is all about. Such sentences now constitute about 25 per cent. of life sentences in England and Wales and less than 5 per cent. in Scotland.
    The amendments extend to all life sentences. There are two reasons for that. In their argument before the European Court of Human Rights the Government maintained that it would be wrong in principle and impractical in operation for two sets of rules to be operated by the Parole Board, depending upon whether the life sentence was mandatory or discretionary. That is good logic and common sense. We agree with those sentiments and consider that, as a matter of principle, all questions of detention and release should rest with the judiciary. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which the expert assessment of risk—now made by the Parole Board—should be overruled by the Minister and his officials. We mean nothing personal, but Ministers come and go and Secretaries of State change rapidly. We believe that the decision should be made by a court-like authority—the Parole Board.
    By including mandatory lifers the amendments would implement the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment published in July 1989. That came down broadly in favour of taking the power of release out of the hands of the Minister and putting it into those of an independent tribunal. I do not want to bore the House with the detail we discussed in Committee, but we have heard the views of the good, the wise and the experienced—I am looking at the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
    The final argument in favour is that the principles of the convention set out by the European court in the cases of Weeks, Thynne and others about the nature of liberty

    355
    make it clear that once a life-serving prisoner has been released, whatever the initial basis for the life sentence, his convention rights are restored. That means that liberty cannot be taken away from the prisoner without due process before a court. Thus, on the revocation of a licence, every life prisoner is entitled to proper judicial process before the board, which must be given power to determine the question of release.
    Running through all the amendments is a clear logic and rationale. We have built on the European court's judgment to bring the system into a much more coherent and consistent form. It is imperative that the Government comply with the European court's ruling. They have no excuse for delay. In Committee the Minister said:
    "I am inclined neither to accept the amendments nor to say at this stage when or how we shall implement the Strasbourg judgment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1991; c. 337.]
    That is not good enough. The Minister justified his position by saying that the subject matter was, in part, sub judice. That was misleading. It was always a red herring as the judgment in the case is related to internal laws in Britain, not to European rulings, and, in any event, it has now been dealt with.
    Interestingly, the Minister's main reason for delay was that there was insufficient time to reflect on the court's decision. That will not hold water, either. It is true that in the Thynne case judgment was given in October 1990, but the judgment in Weeks, which covers much the same ground, was in March 1987. What is more, in the Thynne case the European Court of Human Rights drew up its report expressing the opinion that there had been a violation of the convention as early as September 1989. Therefore, the Government have had plenty of time to think the issues through.
    The problem will not go away. We know of at least three cases in which prisoners are taking the Government to the European court on the same issue. We are raising the new clauses to give the Government yet another chance to show that they will comply with the European court judgments and we hope that they will provide the timetable under which they propose to proceed.
    In this place we are all familiar with the doctrine of the "unright" time. The Government say that they will do something but, "This is not the right Bill, the right time, or the right month." I hope that I have made the case that the Government have a responsibility to bring this country into line with the European Court of Human Rights. What is the purpose of such a court if, time after time, we fail to comply and drag our feet even when we do comply? This Bill deals with precisely that range of matters and there is no excuse for any further delay.
    Mr. John Greenway: I shall not detain the House for long because, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we discussed this subject at some length in Committee. However, because of constraints on time, I did not participate in that debate.
    I am not entirely unsympathetic to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield on discretionary sentences. However, I am not convinced that he made his case on mandatory sentences. The new clauses will incorporate both forms of sentence. I hear what he said about it being four or five months since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Gunnell, Wilson and Thynne.
    356
    It is argued that the Government have had time to consider that case, but I do not believe that the public will expect them to rush into decisions that affect our freedom, peace and security. It is all very well to talk about what the European court said about that case, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those men were convicted of nasty multiple rapes and buggery.
    9.15 pm
    When mandatory sentences are passed, public concern about the need to be protected from murderers becomes even more important. Less than two months ago, we had an interesting debate on capital punishment. Many British people support capital punishment, but say that if we are not to have capital punishment life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment. The Government should have much time to think about how to deliver that requirement, which the public have expressed for a long time, and meet the requirements of the European court. Clearly, we must achieve a proper balance between the liberty and rights of the prisoner and the need to protect the public from dangerous criminals, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take a more cautious view than did the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
    No hon. Member has the right to say, "This is our view and there is no other." We owe it to the British people to ensure that our system of criminal justice and sentencing are adequate to protect the public from people who are a danger to society. I am not sure how we can balance that need with the requirement to state the punitive element of a sentence when it is passed, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Huddersfield was urging.
    As we are so keen to achieve the right balance, it is fair that I should put both points of view. I asked the governor of Full Sutton prison, who has many years' experience in the prison service, for his view on parole and the automatic right to parole for long-sentence prisoners. He said that, in many ways, it is helpful to prison discipline and to the rehabilitation of offenders if they are aware of the punitive element of their sentence.
    If we were dealing only with discretionary life sentences, perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield would have a point. As I said, we are not. We are dealing with discretionary and mandatory sentences. Even after the Bill has been given Royal Assent and is in force, there will still need to be a debate on mandatory sentences. The European court has not ruled on that matter, so the Government should be under no pressure to take precipitate action on it. For that reason, if for no other, the House should reject the new clause.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: It may seem curious that, within weeks of my reaching the 25th anniversary of my arrival in this place, I now wish to make a maiden speech. This will be my maiden speech on a Criminal Justice Bill. I ask for my right hon. and hon. Friends' forgiveness when I tread into this strange new legislative territory.
    I am prompted by a constituency case which reveals the unjustness of the present system in determining life sentences. It involves a young man called Wayne Smart. The case has been the subject of lengthy correspondence with a succession of Home Office Ministers since 1986. I sought then, and I seek now, to get natural justice.
    The case involves some terrible events that led to the death of a local person. I do not wish to rehearse the

    357
    circumstances, save to say that almost everyone who knows the young person and the background has found these events totally out of character. The parents, the young man and obviously the family of the person who was killed have been shattered by the experience. We are all baffled to know what led to it.
    Wayne Smart had no record of previous violent offences—his only previous offence was driving a car without a licence. I received a petition containing more than 600 names from people living in the community where the murdered person and Wayne Smart lived. The petition pleaded with the Home Secretary for leniency. By any standards in my constituency experience, it was extraordinary to receive such a petition.
    I presented the petition to Home Office Ministers in the hope that it would play an important part in determining the young man's length of sentence. That was the beginning of my long contact with a labyrinth of procedures. The case preceded the Handscomb decision in March 1987, which allows counsel to make a plea of mitigation to the trial judge after a person has been found guilty of murder. In this case, there was no opportunity to make a plea of mitigation.
    When I started on the road of trying to find out how Home Office Ministers would decide the length of sentence that Wayne Smart would serve, I found that there were five stages, the most important of which was the Home Office decision as to when a case should first be reviewed by a local review committee—the so-called tariff decision. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly in this one, that is when the most important decision is taken in determining the length of sentence that a person will serve.
    However, as the law stands, a prisoner is permitted virtually no right to make representations; nor does anyone have a right to make representations on his behalf to know on what basis and in what manner a decision on the length of sentence is made. As a layman who is unfamiliar with this aspect of criminal justice, it strikes me as utterly contrary to the principle of natural justice that one is not allowed to know the basis on which such a vital decision is taken.
    In October 1989, with increasing concern about trying to work out the labyrinth of procedures, I wrote to the Home Secretary of the day, and I received a letter from the Minister's predecessor. I made a simple request. I asked him to send me, as the representative of the person and family concerned, information about the basis upon which that person's sentence was determined. In a letter dated October 1989, I was refused that information.
    The interesting aspect of the matter is that the decision is not a judicial one—a point that my hon. Friends have been making—but a Home Office executive decision. An elected representative in this House or anyone else representing someone such as Wayne Smart is not entitled even to know the information, evidence or factors that are taken into account when determining the length of time that a person will serve in prison. Given that that is a Home Office executive decision, and given that it is a matter of profound importance to the person concerned—the Wayne Smart case preceded the Handscomb case, so there was no opportunity even to make a plea of mitigation to the court—such cases show that the existing procedures are contrary to natural justice.
    I hope that my brief intervention in such a debate as this points out a fundamental flaw in the procedures, and that it will be heeded by Ministers and taken into account. As
    358
    others have said, there is already widespread criticism of Home Office Ministers' executive power to determine the length of time that a person such as Mr. Wayne Smart should spend in prison. I hope that, irrespective of the many arguments that have been put, the Minister will take a simple message from a simple case and review the procedure and the law behind it.
    Mr. Lawrence: I cannot follow the constituency case that was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). However, as it was his "maiden speech" and hon. Members are supposed to say something nice about a maiden speaker, I applaud his opportunism in raising a constituency issue at this time rather than in a much later Adjournment debate in the normal way. The debate is about life sentences——
    Mr. Rowlands: So is the case to which I referred.
    Mr. Lawrence: I wanted my comment to be nice. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would consider that I was being complimentary. I am sorry that he does not. Perhaps we may talk about it later.
    I do not have any strong feelings on the new clauses. I do not think that there is much wrong with periodic reviews of life sentences. I should hope that they would be reasonably frequent—perhaps even annual—for humanitarian reasons. Of course, there is always the danger, which must be avoided, that we have so many reviews that expectations are falsely raised. That is a cruel thing to happen to someone who is serving a life sentence or any other lengthy sentence.
    9.30 pm
    In response to the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), first, I do not accept that this country has a poor record of compliance with the human rights rulings in Europe. I know that that is often said by Opposition Members and by so-called "freedom groups", but it simply is not so. I do not want to spend time rehearsing the basis of the argument, because those points will no doubt be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, we were among the first to accept the European Court rulings and we have been assiduous in following them. Having entered the field early, of course we have more rulings against us than some other European countries who came to the obligations of the European Court as Johnnies-come-lately.
    Also, it is not sufficiently realised that we have international responsibility for some of the islands around this country, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel islands. The Isle of Man got into trouble with the European Court over corporal punishment. If that issue had been taken up by this place, it would have received rather more support at the time than it enjoys this evening, with the House as currently constituted.
    Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will not be allowed to get away with that observation. As a Conservative, I am proud of the fact that we are astute and assiduous when complying with the human rights requirements, but I leave the rest of that issue to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    Secondly, nor do I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying when he called upon us to comply with the European Court ruling which, as I recall it—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—applies

    359
    only to discretionary sentences. Life imprisonment is a mandatory sentence. It therefore follows that the European Court ruling does not apply to this country——
    Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps I did not present my case as articulately as usual, but I clearly made the point that our provisions extended from that judgment in order to broaden the base to cover both sorts of life sentence.
    Mr. Lawrence: If that is so, I quite understand why my right hon. Friend is taking her time on behalf of the Government to accept the new clauses. If the hon. Gentleman is rolling together what would be an obligation under discretionary sentences with mandatory sentences, that matter obviously requires consideration. However, it cannot be said that we are somehow not in conformity with an obligation laid down by the European Court. If the hon. Gentleman expects that we shall substitute discretionary sentences for mandatory sentences for life imprisonment, I for one hope that he will be disappointed.
    That is all that I wanted to say. Even in a brief debate, hon. Members should not be allowed to make wholly unacceptable points without expecting to have them dealt with. There is some merit in my right hon. Friend's obvious reluctance to accept the new clauses. I shall listen with great interest—as I always do—to her reasons, bearing in mind that we must be careful and humane about the way in which we deal with people who are incarcerated in life imprisonment, certainly until such time as we improve the standard of our prisons throughout the country, so that they are more decent places in which our prisoners can abide.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is perfectly understandable that we should debate this new clause this evening, just as we debated it in Committee. Our debate is also understandable in the light of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on Gunnell, Thynne and Wilson. Clearly, this matter should be raised and is of concern to Opposition Members. Equally, the Select Committee in the House of Lords has made recommendations on the way in which tariffs are set and sentences are reviewed when the punitive part of sentences has expired.
    I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I also listened carefully to the case put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I am not familiar with it, and I trust that he will excuse me if I do not go into detail, but I carefully noted what he said, and I clearly understood the point that he made. Of course, I will take it back to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his consideration.
    The hon. Member for Huddersfield is well aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the European Court of Human Rights judgment very seriously indeed. I know that the hon. Gentleman fully understands that my right hon. Friend has been in post for not quite two months. The implications of the judgment are a serious responsibility for a Home Secretary. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the issue is of great importance, and therefore requires a great deal of consideration.
    For that reason, I can assure Opposition Members that, as soon as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has
    360
    given the matter his full consideration and finished the discussions in which he is engaged, he will come to the House and give the results to Parliament immediately.
    For the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale gave, it is impossible for us to accept the new clause. It rolls up mandatory and discretionary life sentences. In his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Huddersfield knew that we could not accept the new clause. The European Court of Human Rights decision related only to discretionary matters and did not touch on mandatory matters. That considerably broadens and extends the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in coming to a decision. It is less of a problem to consider the discretionary life sentence implications of the European Court of Human Rights decision.
    Equally, the new clause would mean that the criteria that the Parole Board has to follow would have to be considerably tightened in order to meet the requirements of justice in this country. It is for those reasons, but at the same time assuring Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will come to a decision, that I ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield to withdraw the new clause.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows from the dialogue that we have had in the past few weeks in Committee that I am not satisfied by that response. She also knows that she cannot get away with sidestepping the issue by saying that it is our fault that she cannot accept the new clause because we have rolled up the two issues. As we all know, the Government could probably have unrolled them by tabling their own amendments, making a clear break between discretionary and mandatory life sentences.
    Since the first case in 1987, the Government have had plenty of time. We cannot excuse the new Home Secretary. We cannot drag our feet. There must have been good advice from the Department over the long period since 1987 and for half the past year. Unfortunately, we must divide the House, because we need to push the point as far as we can at this stage.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 279.

    Division No. 73]

    [9.40 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Allen, Graham

    Buckley, George J.

    Alton, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Anderson, Donald

    Callaghan, Jim

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashton, Joe

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Cartwright, John

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clay, Bob

    Battle, John

    Clelland, David

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beggs, Roy

    Cohen, Harry

    Bell, Stuart

    Corbett, Robin

    Bellotti. David

    Cousins, Jim

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Crowther, Stan

    Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

    Cryer, Bob

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cummings, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Boateng, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Boyes, Roland

    Darling, Alistair

    Bradley, Keith

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dixon, Don

    361

    Dobson, Frank

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Doran, Frank

    Marek, Dr John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Martlew, Eric

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maxton, John

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Meacher, Michael

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Meale, Alan

    Fatchett, Derek

    Michael, Alun

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fisher, Mark

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flynn, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Mullin, Chris

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Murphy, Paul

    Foster, Derek

    Nellist, Dave

    Fraser, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fyfe, Maria

    O'Brien, William

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Parry, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Patchett, Terry

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Pendry, Tom

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Prescott, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Radice, Giles

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Randall, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hardy, Peter

    Reid, Dr John

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Richardson, Jo

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Robertson, George

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Rooker, Jeff

    Henderson, Doug

    Rooney, Terence

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Home Robertson, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

    Ingram, Adam

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Janner, Greville

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Snape, Peter

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Soley, Clive

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lambie, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Strang, Gavin

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Lewis, Terry

    Trimble, David

    Lightbown, David

    Turner, Dennis

    Litherland, Robert

    Vaz, Keith

    Livingstone, Ken

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Walley, Joan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    McAllion, John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McCartney, Ian

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wilson, Brian

    McFall, John

    Winnick, David

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McKelvey, William

    Worthington, Tony

    Maclennan, Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    McMaster, Gordon

    McNamara, Kevin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McWilliam, John

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.

    Madden, Max

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Allason, Rupert

    Alexander, Richard

    Amos, Alan

    362

    Arbuthnot, James

    Franks, Cecil

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Freeman, Roger

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    French, Douglas

    Ashby, David

    Fry, Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Gill, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gorst, John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Benyon, W.

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Gregory, Conal

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Grist, Ian

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ground, Patrick

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Hague, William

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Boswell, Tim

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Hannam, John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Brazier, Julian

    Harris, David

    Bright, Graham

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

    Hayward, Robert

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hill, James

    Burns, Simon

    Hind, Kenneth

    Butler, Chris

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Butterfill, John

    Holt, Richard

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cash, William

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunter, Andrew

    Churchill, Mr

    Irvine, Michael

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Jack, Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Janman, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Couchman, James

    Key, Robert

    Cran, James

    Kilfedder, James

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Curry, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Day, Stephen

    Knowles, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Knox, David

    Dicks, Terry

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Dover, Den

    Latham, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Eggar, Tim

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lilley, Peter

    Evennett, David

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Fallon, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Favell, Tony

    Lord, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Maclean, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    363

    Madel, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Sims, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maples, John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Marland, Paul

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Marlow, Tony

    Speed, Keith

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Speller, Tony

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mates, Michael

    Squire, Robin

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Steen, Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Stevens, Lewis

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

    Moate, Roger

    Stokes, Sir John

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thorne, Neil

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pawsey, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Portillo, Michael

    Ward, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Price, Sir David

    Warren, Kenneth

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Watts. John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Redwood, John

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Whitney, Ray

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wilshire, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Rost, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Wood, Timothy

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Yeo, Tim

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 12

      AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967
      '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 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".'.—[Mr. Archer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      364
      This is not the most publicised of our debates and I doubt whether it will be the longest, but I am gratified to see that it has attracted the biggest audience in the Chamber of any debate so far——
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: And of the highest quality.
      Mr. Archer: Indeed.
      We are returning to a measure that we discussed in Committee. I am grateful to Prisoners Abroad for having drawn attention to what is clearly an anomaly. Before 1967, when a judge was imposing a custodial sentence on someone who had spent a period in custody while on remand, he "took that into account". He said to the offender, "I take into account the fact that you have spent this period in custody."
      In 1967 the position was changed. Section 67 of the Act of that year formalised it. The arithmetic was done for the judge. Provided that the time was spent in custody in respect of that offence, the time was formally deducted from whatever sentence was pronounced by the judge. But no similar provision was made for someone who had been apprehended abroad and who had spent time in custody there awaiting extradition. That situation still obtains.
      As a result, if two people are tried at the same time for the same offence but one has been returned from abroad while the other has been in custody in this country on remand, they will be dealt with differently. In the one case the judge will pass the sentence appropriate to the offence and the time spent in custody will be deducted administratively from it; in the other, the judge will have to do the arithmetic—so he will pass two different sentences for the same offence. Experts in the law may not be surprised by that, but when it is reported it will sound very strange to the public. It is clearly anomalous.
      I ventured to raise the subject in Committee, where the Minister said that there was a problem. I have noticed that in most Committees in which Home Office Ministers lead for the Government there is a problem with almost everything that we venture to raise. Perfectly straightforward reforms crying out for action always manage to attract problems.
      I really commend the ingenuity of the Home Office in finding a problem for every solution. On this occasion, the Minister said that the problem lay with the definition of "custody", because custody can be anything from lying in a dark, dismal and damp cell without access to anyone from the outside world, to house arrest, where people live in their comfortable villas and all that happens is that they are forbidden to move away. That I fully understand. What I do not understand is why it is thought that the Home Office, with all its resources, should not be in a better position to resolve the matter than the judge, if only because the Home Office has time beforehand in which to do it, whereas the judge will have to do it on the spot. I therefore venture to raise the matter again in the hope that the Minister will have had further thoughts about it.
      The Minister said in Committee that there was no real problem for the judge: the defendant could tell him what had happened, and he could take it from there. I am not wholly clear why the defendant cannot tell the administrative authorities what has happened. The one thing that I am fairly certain of is that, if we have to rely on the defendant in the dock to tell the judge what happened, when the judge has no means of checking, it will hardly be conducive to the cause of truth.

      365
      When the Minister says that the defendant's lawyers can find out the circumstances in which he was detained, I wonder if the Minister has given any realistic thought to what happens when his lawyers are acting on legal aid. If they spend a lot of time trying to find out what happened in some foreign part, I suspect that they will want to be paid for it; and I suspect that, when they apply to be paid by the legal aid fund, they will be very disappointed—and this will get around.
      It would be very much better if problems of this kind were resolved by the Home Office rather than by the judge on the instant in the court. If that were so, we would not have this anomaly between treatment of prisoners detained on remand in this country and that of prisoners detained abroad and awaiting extradition.
      It would be a great event if, just for once, the Home Office listened to a good idea and, without searching for difficulties, agreed to act on it and put matters right. The Minister could be the first of her kind if she seized that opportunity tonight.
      Mrs. Rumbold: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) makes a very persuasive case to the House and it is always a pleasure to hear him do so. I found it, as always, interesting to listen to his argument, which is that the time that people have spent on remand in custody in this country is taken into consideration in the sentence whereas, at present, this is not the case when the custody has been abroad. Very properly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the positions of the respective offenders are not always comparable, and different arrangements can, I think, be justified to take account of different circumstances.
      The right hon. and learned Member is aware, I am certain, of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which makes it clear that remand time is relevant only when it is directly connected with any proceedings relating to the sentence that it affects. That is an important principle and it should be reflected in the way in which foreign custody is treated.
      It is a little more difficult, as the right hon. and learned Member pointed out, to determine precisely what foreign custody means, because it can vary from one type of custody to its opposite, from a dank cell in a prison somewhere to house custody. The definitions need to be looked at carefully. A variety of factors need to be considered before a decision to reduce the sentence to be served in this country can properly be made. Therefore, it is not right to extend section 67 to take account of foreign custody.
      However, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that judges should consider reducing a sentence to give credit for time spent in foreign custody, and that is a sensible and practical arrangement. The judgment about those matters——
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mrs. Rumbold: That seems to be a sensible and practical arrangement. A judgment about these matters by the sentencing judge, having regard to the facts of the case
      366
      before him at the time of the sentence, is the logical way to go about things. I note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about the position of the case as it is presented to the judges, and the importance of taking that into account when the matter is taken forward.
      It is unfortunate that I cannot grant the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dearest wish and agree to the new clause. In Committee, my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to reflect further on the matter, and said that the Government would, if necessary, introduce an amendment or new clause to ensure that nothing in the Bill prevented the courts from using their existing powers to reduce sentence length and to take account of time served abroad awaiting extradition. Such an amendment would also serve to bring to the attention of defendants, their legal representatives and the courts the existence of the power. My right hon. Friend has not forgotten the undertaking, and will think about the matter further in the light of this debate.
      Mr. Archer: I am grateful for the last few remarks made by the right hon. Lady but, as I said in Committee, however welcome the Minister's undertaking, it bore little relationship to my proposal. It may be that, when the Minister is reflecting on the other matter, he will reflect also on my proposal. For that reason, and because I always live in hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 13

      LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER
      'In section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, for the word "sentenced" there shall be substituted the word "liable".'.—[Mr. Archer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Again, we return to a theme that we discussed in Committee and earlier today, although we are dealing with a different aspect of life sentences. The new clause is about mandatory life sentences for murder. Earlier this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, when moving new clause 6, that he was taking together mandatory life sentences and discretionary ones. That caused a certain amount of muddle in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
      This time, we are all clear. We are talking about mandatory life sentences. The issue is not whether they should be available to the court as a means of disposing of the appropriate cases, but whether there should be no other course open to the court, whatever the circumstances. I believe that this came about—again the hon. and learned Member for Burton said something about this—because it used to be thought that murder was a unique offence and therefore required a unique penalty. That used to be the death penalty. The death penalty was not unique to murder. What was unique was that the death penalty was mandatory. There were very few other offences for which any penalty was mandatory. When in 1965 the death penalty for murder was abolished, it was felt that any alternative penalty should also be unique.
      Mr. John Patten indicated dissent.
      Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If he wishes to intervene, I am more than willing to give way, because I am not sure which of my statements he is challenging.
      What I was saying was that when in 1965 the death penalty was abolished for murder it was felt that the alternative penalty should be unique. The alternative penalty was life imprisonment, but that was not unique to murder, as we have heard this evening. There are discretionary life penalties for other offences. What was unique, again, was that it was mandatory. No other course is open to the court, whatever the situation, whatever the mitigation.
      It is a curious concept because everyone knows that the circumstances of offences of murder vary enormously from the savage killing of a total stranger for gain or to get a sick kick, to a crime passionel by a heartbroken spouse, having discovered that his or her partner has been unfaithful, or the action of someone terminating the life of a terminally sick, close relative—the sort of tragedies that we heard about in some of our earlier debates.
      Whether we believe that murder merits only a life sentence depends largely on how we formulate the question. Last year a Gallup poll was conducted for BBC2's "Public Eye" programme. The first question asked was:
      "Do you think that there should be a mandatory life sentence for murder?"
      There was a curious result; 47 per cent. of those questioned said yes, 47 per cent. said no, and the others did not know. So there was a dead heat. The same people were then asked:
      "Do you think that there should be a mandatory life sentence for someone who terminates the life of a terminally-ill relative?"
      Only 10 per cent. said yes.
      A particular problem relates to hospital orders. Just as the circumstances of murder vary enormously, so the circumstances of murderers vary widely. There may be people who have to be incarcerated for a long period for the protection of the public. There may be others who, we are fairly certain, will never kill again. Sometimes we have to look at the mental condition of the offender.
      In many cases a judge would want to make a hospital order, possibly with restrictions. The way we deal with that at the moment is to take up the time of the courts, of the judges, of the legal profession and of expert witnesses, arguing the technicalities of whether someone acted by reason of diminished responsibility. What we should be discussing is whether the hospital order is the appropriate disposal.
      The case mentioned a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) seemed to turn largely on whether it was possible to obtain a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. In that case the jury had to say, "No, we think it was murder." That is not the question which the court should be addressing; the court should be asking whether it is necessary to lock someone away either in prison or in hospital in order to protect the public. The new clause would spare the courts, the legal aid fund, the Crown prosecution service and everyone concerned the resources now spent on such issues which are needed for other purposes.
      Sometimes matters operate in reverse. I understand that victim support groups say that it is wrong for a sentence to
      368
      be decided in that way because it is the wrong test. They think that some people who escape life imprisonment for murder, because of the application of the diminished responsibility test, would probably be much better incarcerated for a long period. So the victim support groups say that there can be, perhaps not miscarriages of justice, but wrong ways of dealing with the matter in both directions. This proposal was supported by the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders in 1975, the Advisory Council on Penal Reform in 1978, the parliamentary all-party penal reform group in 1986 and the Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment—the Nathan committee—in 1989. All those bodies concluded that this was the right way in which to deal with the problem.
      I think that I told the Minister in Committee that one of her distinguished predecessors in the high office that she now holds—Lord Windlesham—had made what she would recognise, had she read his book, as an unanswerable case for my proposal. I assure her that it is supported widely among the judiciary. I am not relying on the evidence of private conversations; I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield talking in Committee about a poll of members of the Court of Appeal by the Lord Chief Justice—I think that the figures were 19 to 12——
      Mr. John Patten: A leak!
      Mr. Archer: It may have been a leak; nevertheless, it is no secret that a substantial number of the higher judiciary take this view.
      It may be said that there is no need to worry because the matter can be left to the Home Office: the Home Office will release the offender at the appropriate time. That is wrong in principle and, I believe, distorted in practice. It is wrong in principle because the general policy of the law and the constitution in this country is that individual freedom is determined by courts of law, not by the Executive. I am not suggesting that the present Home Office Ministers will enter into a dire conspiracy to keep people in prison for longer than they should be there; but it is wrong in principle that the Executive should make such decisions. It is also wrong in practice, because the Home Office—like all of us—is anxious to show that a life sentence is a serious matter and should mean a substantial sentence. It is very difficult to release someone who has been sentenced for life if he has served only a relatively short sentence.
      The most serious cases are lumped together with those that would merit a more moderate sentence. The Home Office is therefore compelled either to release people after only a short period—which might send out the wrong signals—or to keep in custody people who should be, and can safely be, released. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) gave the example of a constituent who had committed a murder, but who clearly did not come within the exceptional provisions that reduced murder to manslaughter. That person was no danger to the community. He had been on bail while he was on remand awaiting his trial; he had been walking to and from his home, meeting people in the street, and no one had seen anything wrong in that. Nevertheless, when he was convicted, the court had no alternative but to pass a life sentence.
      In Committee, the Minister argued that some hon. Members who had voted in December for the

      369
      reintroduction of the death penalty had done so on the understanding that the alternative was a life sentence. He said it would be ratting on an agreement if we changed that now. I think that I understand that reasoning—as a reason why we should not have made the change in Committee, where other hon. Members cannot take part in the debate or listen to what is being said. But if that is applied to debates on the Floor of the House, any attempt to disturb the present position by hangers, or any lobby that they and their friends choose to muster, can mean no reform for the foreseeable future. Whatever motion was introduced, and however unlikely it was to succeed, the Government could claim after the vote that nothing must be changed because some hon. Members might have voted on the basis of the status quo. That would put an end for ever to all proposals for reform.
      I urge the Minister to consider this matter on its merits. Not even the Home Office can consider that "Whatever is, is good." I think that those words come from Alexander Pope; no doubt I shall be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong. Some things that are, are not good. I do not believe that even the Home Office believes that everything that is, is good. It may even think that the existence of this provision does not make it right. Perhaps we shall have another first for the Home Office.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Stuart Randall: This new clause has considerable support outside the House. In particular, it has the support of the Penal Affairs Consortium. We believe that life sentences for murder should no longer be mandatory. There would be a maximum sentence, and judges would be able to use their discretion to impose fixed sentences where that was appropriate. Hon. Members will be aware that, at present, a life sentence is mandatory for murder. No judge may alter it to take account of the circumstances of a particular case. The sentence imposed on someone convicted of a mercy killing is the same as that imposed on a terrorist murderer or a child sex murderer.
      A recent survey by the Quaker Council for European Affairs, entitled "A fair deal for lifers" and dated 1990, found that the number of prisoners in England, Wales and Scotland sentenced to life terms was 3,054. That number greatly exceeded the combined figure for all the other countries of western Europe, which was 2,688. The report says:
      "As information on numbers is only lacking from Switzerland, Malta, Liechtenstein and San Marino, it would be reasonable to assume that the United Kingdom has more life-sentence prisoners than the whole of the rest of western Europe."
      If the number of life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland had been added to the figure for England, Scotland and Wales, the total number for the United Kingdom would have been 3,503.
      The report concludes that an important reason for the high number of life sentences in this country is the fact that the life sentence is mandatory in murder cases. For example, it seems that in many other countries of western Europe, a person convicted of a domestic murder would get a fixed sentence.
      The mandatory nature of the life sentence has been much criticised. Making life imprisonment the maximum sentence, rather than the mandatory sentence, for murder was a recommendation of the Butler committee on
      370
      mentally abnormal offenders in 1975—a recommendation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has referred—and of the Advisory Council on Penal Reform in 1978. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to several other august bodies that had made the same recommendation, but it would take too long to detail the findings of all those bodies. I shall therefore concentrate on the most recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan.
      The Nathan committee considered in detail the principal arguments for the mandatory life sentence, and rejected each one in turn. It had been argued that, because murder is a uniquely serious offence, it should attract a distinctive penalty to mark the revulsion with which society regards it. However, the Select Committee pointed out:
      "some cases of murder will be less grave than some cases of attempted murder, or of manslaughter, or of causing grievous bodily harm with intent."
      The committee quoted Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone in R v. Howe in 1987, when he said:
      "Murder, as every practitioner of the law knows, though often described as one of the utmost heinousness, is not in fact necessarily so, but consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degrees of culpability."
      The Select Committee also pointed out that the definition of murder was not confined to intentional killings but could be satisfied when there was an intention to cause serious bodily harm.
      It had been argued that life imprisonment is an appropriate retributive sentence for murder. In paragraph 110B, the Select Committee said:
      "Another view is that the stigma which ought to attach to any particular murder varies according to the circumstances and should be marked by a sentence appropriate to those circumstances. Retribution demands a variable sentence."
      It had also been argued that the mandatory life sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The Select Committee pointed out that many murders were committed in domestic circumstances by people under immense emotional stress, who are unlikely to offend again.
      It had been claimed that public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary. The Select Committee argued that the reaction of the public
      "varies greatly according to the circumstances"
      and that the
      "public seems to be well able to recognise powerful mitigation, even in the case of deliberate killing."
      Ministers have argued that there would be considerable public opposition to moves to make life the maximum, rather than the mandatory, sentence for murder. However, such a reform would be in line with the views expressed by the families of murder victims in evidence given to the Nathan committee by Victim Support and the Parents of Murdered Children Group. The director of Victim Support, Helen Reeves, said:
      "We want to put on record quite clearly that, from the families we have met … a long and determinate sentence, would probably be as satisfactory to the family as a life sentence."
      Victims' groups also expressed concern that the existence of the mandatory life sentence led to many offences of murder being diminished to manslaughter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West referred to the Gallup poll for "Public Eye". I shall not repeat what he said, except to say that the survey found that only 10 per

      371
      cent., of people were in favour of individuals who had killed a terminally ill relative, who had asked to be killed, receiving a life sentence.
      This is such a serious and complex matter that I must make all these points clearly. It has been argued that the abolition of the mandatory life sentence could present peculiarly difficult sentencing problems, because there were no precedents to guide a judge in imposing a determinate sentence for murder. The Select Committee said that the Court of Appeal would soon establish appropriate principles of sentencing for murder, as it has for other offences, and that the Lord Chief Justice did not appear to envisage any special difficulties.
      It was argued that the mandatory life sentence is a valuable deterrent. In paragraph 114B of its report, the Select Committee said:
      "The counter-argument is that the fact, that the life sentence is mandatory, actually reduces any deterrent value a life sentence may have. It dilutes what should be the awe-inspiring nature of the sentence. Because many murderers receive unnecessary life sentences, the average time served is reduced … if the life sentence became discretionary, the average time served by lifers would be substantially increased."
      The life sentence became discretionary in the Australian state of Victoria in 1986, since when the incidence of homicide has remained about the same.
      The case for change is overwhelming. Many life sentence prisoners could appropriately have been given fixed sentences. Murders vary enormously from planned and calculated killings for material gain or political motives to those committed under pressure and in circumstances of much emotional stress. We believe that judges should be able to reflect those variations in their sentences, reserving life imprisonment for the most heinous cases.
      Mrs. Rumbold: Some peculiarly seductive arguments have been advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on substituting life sentences for the mandatory sentence for murder.
      The evidence that has been put before us is that a large body of public opinion believes that the mandatory life sentence is no longer required and that the courts would be a better forum for passing sentence on those convicted of murder. The British public trust the House of Commons to act and think on their behalf.
      A body of opinion may think that the replacement of the mandatory sentence with a life sentence would be satisfactory, but we should define what we mean. The mandatory sentence for murder means not that people who commit murder go to prison for ever and a day but that for the rest of their lives they are under sentence and, although they may serve only relatively short sentences according to the nature of the murder that they committed, after release they are not at liberty in the sense that the rest of the community is at liberty because if they reoffend they can be recalled and returned to custody.
      That is an important principle and it shows the difference between Labour Members and the Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West spoke of the uniqueness of the life sentence. It is unique because many people regard the crime of murder as a uniquely bad and heinous crime. Although we recognize
      372
      the difference between someone who is unduly provoked into taking the life of another person in the heat of the moment and a calculated and planned vicious murder, and that each of those murders may attract different sentences, both people have taken the life of another person. The Government, and many people outside who do not articulate their views through "Public Eye" on BBC 2, believe that murder should attract a unique sentence. Some people may not articulate their view when questioned in opinion polls geared to getting a particular answer. As we all know, questions can be produced to look even-handed, but it is a sad fact of life that sometimes opinion polls reveal only what we wish them to reveal.
      10.30 pm
      This is a serious matter. We believe that the crime of murder is unique. A mandatory sentence means that people may serve a modest sentence in prison. When they are released, they may be recalled. Several cases justify retention of a mandatory sentence. A person released from prison may behave normally, but later in life he may reoffend and have to return to prison. It is important to retain a mandatory sentence to ensure the credibility of the system of justice which we uphold. I am unable to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Archer: When the Minister said that our arguments were seductive, I hoped that she was about to announce that she was about to be seduced—hope springs eternal, at least on the Opposition Benches.
      I was a little disappointed that the Minister seemed to take such comfort from the thought that someone who had been sentenced to life imprisonment would be under licence for the rest of his or her life. It is not the normal theory of the constitution that individuals should be at the mercy of the Executive for the rest of their lives. It would require a strong case to inflict that on anyone, and that that should happen, irrespective of the nature of the offence and whether the public needs to be protected and whether the offence is likely to recur—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) can stop the semaphore. I see that the Minister wishes to intervene and I shall, of course, give way.
      Mrs. Rumbold: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is kind. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), but I am sure he knows that I can compete with other right hon. and hon. Members on even terms.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I took comfort from the fact that people who were released on licence were in some way different and that their liberties were infringed. Of course, what happens rests in their hands. They have no need to reoffend. Their liberties are not impaired, except at their own hands and by their own behaviour.
      Mr. Archer: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady was present at our earlier debates. The burden of one of our debates was that if a person's liberties are at the mercy of the Home Office, it does not follow that what happens reflects that person's desserts. The European Court of Human Rights said that that did not follow. If a person's case is periodically reviewed by a court, we can hear the arguments and see what happens and there may be a possibility of appeal. If a person's liberty is determined inside an office where we cannot see what is happening and

      373
      there is no periodic review, it is not true that his fate depends on how he behaves—it may depend on the number of files on another person's desk.
      I do not suggest that that happens regularly, but it is precisely why the textbooks on constitutional law and practice are so insistent that people's liberties should not be at the mercy of the Executive but should be determined by the courts. I am troubled that the right hon. Lady, at this early stage of her career in the Home Office, has such touching faith in the infallibility of the Department, and it makes it no easier for me to say what I am about to say.
      A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said that murder
      374
      may be regarded as unique but that that does not necessarily reflect the degree of moral culpability involved. The degree of moral culpability for a rape, an aggravated assault or an armed robbery may be greater, in the judgment of most of us, than for some murders. The argument that murder is unique is not a particularly strong one when reflected upon, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will do just that in the little time that remains for reflection. I do not think that any purpose would be served by pressing the matter to a Division, but the right hon. Lady cannot stop me hoping.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 18

      SENTENCING AN OFFENDER WITH A MENTAL DISORDER
      '(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, this section applies where a person is convicted of an offence and the court is told in good faith or has reason to suspect that the offender is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.
      (2) The court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion that—

      (a) the offender's mental condition and his need, if any, for treatment will not be seriously and adversely affected by such a sentence; and

      (b) that all reasonable and practicable steps have been taken to investigate and secure for the offender such treatment, if any, as may be appropriate for his mental disorder.

      (3) Where a court passes a custodial sentence, it shall be its duty to state in open court that it is of the opinion that both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) above apply and why it is of that opinion.
      (4) A magistrates' court shall cause the opinion stated by it under subsection (3) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
      (5) For the purpose of determining whether it is of such an opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, a court shall obtain and consider a medical opinion on the offender's mental condition and the likely effect upon this of a custodial sentence.
      (6) In this section "medical opinion" means an oral or written report which is made or submitted by a registered medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.
      (7) This section does not apply where the sentence for the offence is fixed by law.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of this extremely important new clause is to ensure that courts will be obliged to obtain and consider a report on an offender's mental condition in appropriate cases, and shall not pass a custodial sentence until it is of the opinion that the offender's mental condition will not be seriously adversely affected by such a sentence.
      We were talking this afternoon about debt defaulters being sent to prison. I said that it was ghastly that fine defaulters are sent to prison like the defaulters in Dickens's time. Perhaps I was slightly exaggerating, but I am sure that the House had some notion of the point that I was trying to make.
      If we were looking for a major scandal in our criminal justice system, it would be necessary to focus only upon the mentally disordered who presently occupy our prisons, who find themselves in court and who find themselves dealt with in an entirely inappropriate way. There was much debate on these matters in Committee.
      It is disturbing that many of the Government's social policies that bear on health, the closure of large mental institutions and care in the community have been slogans more than realities for many, who have found that they have nowhere to live and no work. They finish up—we can see some of them a short distance from the House—in cardboard city. We know that others end up in prison. Whenever I visit prisons, officers and governors say, "There are people here who should never have been sent here." They are talking about people who did not end up in prison 10 years ago. Surely it is ghastly that, over the
      376
      past 10 years, the penal policy within the criminal justice system has led to many mentally disordered people being sent to entirely inappropriate places.
      The policy of the Home Office is that the mentally disordered offender should be diverted from custody wherever possible; I refer the House to Home Office circular 66/90 of 3 September 1990. However, apart from the Mental Health Act 1983, which provides powers for the courts to order treatment in suitable cases, there is no legal obligation for the courts to consider the mental state of a defendant before sending him or her to prison. As the Bill stands, it makes no provision to oblige the court to investigate the mental condition of the defendant. The court will be required only to take that into account when other parties may have obtained relevant information about it.
      The clause provides an opportunity to advance the Government's widely welcomed pledge to aid diversion by ensuring that defendants with needs arising from their mental disorder do not slip through the net into an entirely inappropriate penal system.
      As this matter is not something about which the Government know nothing—we believe that they were persuaded of it in Committee—we had high hopes that, on Report, they would produce some positive amendments. No one can avoid understanding that this is a scandal. We are not trying to make this into too much of a party political issue, but if it were not so late and we had not therefore decided that we shall probably not seek to push the new clause to a Division, we might be marshalling much more political arguments in this discussion. However, we shall not do that, because we want to persuade the Government.
      The problem is apparent. One of the most ghastly inequities in our country today is the fact that mentally disordered people are in prison, where they should not be. The new clause gives the Government an easy way to stop that. It states simply that there should be a proper psychiatric assessment of prisoners coming to the attention of the court.
      Dame Jill Knight: I have read the new clause with great interest, and have one question about it. Although none of us wants a person who is suffering from a bad mental disease to be imprisoned thoughtlessly and carelessly, what about mental patients who have, say, hacked somebody to death and are a real danger to the public? I am worried that the new clause does not refer to that aspect.
      Mr. Sheerman: Although I shall come to that point later, I shall try quickly to put the hon. Lady's mind at rest now. In a severe case, where someone who is mentally disordered hacks someone to death, psychiatric opinions will of course be advanced in court. In such severe and dramatic cases, psychiatric evidence becomes available as part of the prosecution and defence structure of our court system.
      The new clause seeks to deal with the fact that, if the research is correct, up to 20 per cent. of people in our prisons are suffering from some form of mental disorder. I do not know whether that figure is too high or too low, but that is the figure that people are giving us. There is also the anecdotal evidence that I have already mentioned, of prison governors and officers saying, "We are not a mental institution, but we are being asked to lock up people not

      377
      because their behaviour is criminal but because their mental state leads them to commit crime." There is a difference.
      I hope that I can put the hon. Lady's mind at rest by saying that the new clause would require all the sentencing courts to have regard to the mental condition of a defendant who it reasonably suspects or is told in good faith has a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. To some degree, that already happens. In my experience, most courts are quite caring places. A police officer, probation worker or court official will often flag the fact that the case is not what it seems, and that the defendant needs medical attention.
      At its best and in that informal way, our court system works, but it is not working in that way enough. The procedure is patchy and unsystematised. The court cannot pass a custodial sentence upon such a person unless it is of the opinion, which has to be stated in open court, that a custodial sentence will not "seriously and adversely affect" the offender's mental condition and his or her need, if any, for treatment; and that "all reasonable and practical steps" have been tried to investigate and secure for the defendant any treatment which he or she needs. The court has to obtain a medical opinion on the defendant's mental condition and the likely impact of custody upon him before it forms its opinion.
      A medical opinion can be supplied orally or in writing by a doctor approved under the Mental Health Act 1983. In practice, it is usually a consultant psychiatrist or senior registrar in psychiatry.
      The court would not he under that duty when the offence was murder. Medical reports are always obtained in murder cases, in any event. I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that I would come to that.
      10.45 pm
      Too many mentally ill people are in our prison system. The Home Office has commissioned research, which is continuing. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me if progress has been made. The research is being undertaken by Professor John Gunn into the psychiatric profile of the sentenced prison population. His findings have not yet been published, but, on 2 October, The Observer contained an article on the expected findings of the report. It said that more than a fifth of sentenced prisoners were mentally ill, including many in acute need of psychiatric treatment which they did not receive. The findings suggested that more than 1,000 sentenced prisoners fell into the acute category within that band. We are therefore talking about large numbers of mentally ill people inside our prisons.
      Since we discussed the matter in Committee on 11 December, two key reports have been published, which are of great relevance to today's debate. I shall describe them briefly.
      First, on 14 December 1990, the Home Office published Judge Tumim's scathing report on Brixton prison. Its most grave criticisms were of the medical facilities in the gaol. These were described as understaffed, underskilled, operating in crowded and wholly inappropriate physical conditions, where the strip cells, for the most disturbed prisoners, held a permanent smell of urine, the walls bore faecal stains and the mattresses were dirty. The report considered that insufficient use was being made of section
      378
      48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to arrange the transfer from prison of the mentally ill prisoner requiring treatment.
      I am going through the evidence quickly, because I do not want to detain the House too long; but it is important to put the evidence before the House. The report revealed that Brixton prison is a major source of psychiatric reports for the criminal justice system. It performed that role in more than a third of the total number of cases in which reports were obtained. The cost during 1988–89 of a week's remand in Brixton for this purpose can be simply averaged at £402.
      On 19 December, the Home Office published the report of the chief inspector of prisons into suicide and self-harm in prisons. As the Minister will know, it makes ghastly reading. It revealed details of suicides in prison. It detailed graphically the vast difference between the treatment which a mentally ill prisoner would receive from the prison medical service and that which he or she would receive from the national health service, and the inability of the prison medical service to meet the needs of the seriously disturbed, and especially the non-compliant, prisoner.
      The report's 123 recommendations include many which are relevant to the mentally ill or mentally disturbed prisoner. It accepted the connection between mental disorder and suicide in a proportion of cases—22 per cent., according to the study by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which is referred to in the report. In over 33 per cent. of suicide cases, the person had a history of psychiatric contact, while over 25 per cent. had had previous treatment as an in-patient. Responding to the report, the Home Secretary referred to the "disproportionate number" of mentally disordered prisoners who take their own lives.
      I hope that the House accepts that that evidence is relevant to the new clause. The report proposed that, in the interim, and before the NHS had built up its facilities, certain prison medical wings should be upgraded to NHS standards. That recommendation also appeared in the Brixton report. The Home Secretary responded by stating that a group convened by the director of the prison medical service was to consider the proposal. But the pressure group MIND believes that the proposal has already been rejected by the Home Office and the Department of Health. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
      At the same time, Judge Tumim stressed the need for diversion from inappropriate penal custody of the mentally disordered defendant. He recommended the duty psychiatric rota scheme in operation at Bow street, Marylebone and Horseferry road magistrates courts. To test the patience of the House just a little—this is an important matter—I shall outline to the House what that scheme is. The scheme provides rapid and effective assessments to the court from a psychiatrist attending the court. The provision of such cost-effective schemes in every busy court would avoid the possibility that the amendment to clause 3 would lead to remands into custody simply for the purpose of obtaining medical reports.
      I could understand it if the Minister said that this was a difficult problem and that he did not want to see more mentally disturbed people in prison for psychiatric reports. However, the Tumim report suggests that a duty psychiatrist service could be organised quickly throughout the court system to provide a rapid assessment of a

      379
      person's mental state. That report would not require that person to be held for a week in Brixton or Armley, where he would be prone to take his life or his mental illness could be exacerbated. Such assessment schemes are already working.
      In Committee, confidence was expressed in the prison medical service. I recall that the Minister of State stated:
      "It is recognised that excellent work is being carried out by the highly-qualified people who are involved in the prison medical service".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1990; c.143]
      The Minister and I must agree to disagree on that. I suppose some good work is undertaken somewhere, but every report I have seen states that it is about time that we got rid of the prison medical service and allowed prisoners to come under the care of the NHS. That would be a healthier and better system, and it is advocated by many prison visitors.
      The annual report of the chief inspector of prisons in 1989 also criticised prison medical facilities. The prison medical service scrutiny report of July 1990 found:
      "There is no clear definition of the standard of clinical care expected"
      in the service. In October 1990, the British Medical Association published critical findings in its report on the health care of remand prisoners.
      It is no longer possible to be in the least complacent about that scandalously inadequate service. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is imperative to take swift action to ameliorate that appalling situation. The Government's welcome circular of September 1990 must be backed up by legislation now. We are concerned that the circular, in common with some of the rhetoric on community care, means nothing without national implementation backed by adequate resources.
      The courts need diversion schemes with rota psychiatrists available to provide assessments. Health authorities may need to provide psychiatric care beds while social and probation services will need to offer community facilities such as psychiatric bail hostels. Before the Minister says that all that would be expensive, it is important to remember that savings would result from such services. I have already said that it costs £402 to remand someone in Brixton for a week. Our proposal would speed the introduction of duty psychiatrist rota schemes in courts. They are already operating in some places, and we must extend their use, as it will result in fewer remands in custody that carry such hugh costs in financial and human terms.
      Diversion from custody for those who are mentally disordered can be greatly advanced by improving the quality of the decisions affecting them. Too often, those people have suffered from indifference, discrimination and prejudice at the hands of the authorities charged with their care. Those authorities are not wicked, as one cannot blame a criminal justice system that does not have specific training in how to treat the mentally disordered. Our system is designed to deal with "normal" criminals.
      I am not criticising the personnel, the training they receive or their motivation. It is just a fact of life that the criminal justice system is designed to deal with "normal" criminals. If we ensured, however, that the courts sought expert advice, there would be less chance of ill judged or inappropriate sentencing decisions on the mentally disordered.
      It is now the policy of the BMA that each court should have a duty psychiatrist rota, so there should be no
      380
      difficulty in obtaining the co-operation of that profession. Our proposal could also give impetus to the Government's circular 66/90, which calls on courts to establish arrangements for speedy access to professional psychiatric advice.
      A parliamentary answer that I received on 3 December stated that no information was available on the number of schemes that had been established. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that answer, because I am surprised that the Home Office does not know how many schemes are in operation or have been established. It is not enough simply to state that such schemes are desirable: we need action now. If, because of resource implications, the Government are unwilling to tolerate a statutory duty that completely mirrors the previously expressed policy that they tried to introduce in the criminal justice system, the policy clearly lacks conviction, and its implementation will be constantly compromised.
      When we discussed the subject in Committee, the Minister said:
      "I give a clear undertaking that I shall examine the issues and bring forward Government amendments on Report.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1990; c. 151.]
      Where are those amendments? The Opposition are dismayed at the Government's failure to respond to such a key issue. Prison is the worst place for someone whose mental condition is amenable to treatment from which he would benefit. It serves neither the public interest in reducing the likelihood of further offences, nor the individual interest of the offender who requires treatment. He or she should be entitled to decent treatment and care.
      If we make it harder for the courts to commit defendants to such conditions, we may save the lives of those whose mental disturbance leads to suicide, encourage the rapid development of the co-ordinated and comprehensive schemes, and make the idea work in practice.
      As the hour is late, I have not done justice to my argument. Many new clauses have been moved faster than I have moved this one, but new clause 18 is of the greatest importance and affects many of the most vulnerable people in our society, who should not be in prison and who could be easily diverted from it if the Government were to accept the new clause. I hope to hear a positive response from the Minister.
      Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was absolutely right that we should put the protection of the public first when considering the position of people with mental problems. One of the most difficult problems facing a Minister of whichever Government is when someone who is found guilty of a terrible crime such as murder is also found to be mentally ill and is taken for treatment to an institution rather than a prison. Recommendations sometimes come to Ministers after a very brief period—two or three years—suggesting that the person is cured and because he was not a criminal he should be allowed into the community. I find such decisions some of the most difficult that I have to take. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, who made an important point, and other hon. Members, that the Home Office will continue to take such decisions with very great care.
      I hope that, as with our debates on racial discrimination, there is no difference between the two teams of Front-Bench spokesmen about the end we wish to

      381
      achieve. We must find a way of squaring the circle that enables the court to identify, and obtain reports quickly on, those suspected of being mentally disordered without defeating the purpose of the exercise by having to put them on remand in custody for a long period awaiting those reports. That is an extremely difficult issue to deal with practically. The problem of reconciling the two conflicting objectives is, essentially, a practical, not legislative, one. I shall talk first about the practice and describe my ideas on legislation later in my speech.
      We need arrangements for psychiatric reports to be made at short notice, otherwise the purpose of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I want to achieve—to have fewer mentally disordered people in gaol—will fail because they will be in prison for a long time, kicking their heels, waiting for a report.
      There are very few schemes in operation in this country where duty psychiatrists are on hand to give a rapid assessment. I saw one such scheme in action at Bow street. There are only three others in the country: one at Great Marlborough street, one at Horseferry road and one in Peterborough. Opposition Members' instant reaction might be to blame that on lack of resources from the Government, but even if we turned on the tap of money tomorrow, we could not possibly provide the necessary schemes all over the country within a year. There are just not enough psychiatrists. Not enough of them have been trained to do this difficult job. The royal college is tackling that problem now.
      11 pm
      If we introduce this legislation now, we shall be laying a trap for ourselves. There are effective schemes only in the three places I mentioned, yet we would give judges the legislative duty to remand in custody people awaiting reports. The result would be even more people in the conditions to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred.
      So this is not an occasion for waving the magic wand. Even if that prodigious kind fairy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, were able to provide the money tomorrow, there are not enough psychiatrists to do the job at present.
      I agree that we need to change the legislation. I continue to consider whether we should send a clear legislative signal in the Bill to show the courts more clearly how they should try to strike the difficult balance between unnecessary remanding in custody for psychiatric reports and sentencing to imprisonment mentally disordered offenders who should be dealt with in other ways.
      When I gave the commitment in Committee to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield properly referred, it had not crossed anyone's mind that we should look at the workings of the Bail Act 1976. We are now taking a hard look at the parallel workings of that Act, to determine whether it might be possible to improve matters by altering it in this legislation.
      I am continuing to work on the legislative possibilities with the aim of introducing a proposal in another place. I have taken into account new difficulties that have been identified; I have reflected on the issues raised in Committee; and I have stumbled on new possibilities involving the Bail Act. I hope that in the light of that further undertaking the hon. Member for Huddersfield will see fit to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Sheerman: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am encouraged by his commitment to further consideration.
      I had understood from the British Medical Association, however, that there was no problem. Is the Minister saying that the Institute of Psychiatry claims that there is a shortage of manpower? If there is a shortage, how long does the Minister think it will take to solve the problem?
      Ministers always manage to mention the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but are we really talking about a great deal of money? Any cost analysis must take into account how much will be saved by not sending people unnecessarily to prison. We need a proper costing of the operation, not a one-sided analysis.
      Assuming that I am granted assurances on these matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOSING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
      'and the court passes a custodial sentence on the offender for a term of more than two years'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
      Mr. Randall: The amendment is widely supported by informed opinion outside the House. Its aim is to extend the criteria governing the use of custodial sentences.
      Hon. Members will recall that clause 1(2) of the Bill lays down the conditions whereby custodial sentences shall not be passed; it also refers to offences triable only on indictment, where the sentence is of two years or less. As it stands, the clause requires the criteria to be satisfied in all cases where the offender has not served a prison sentence, but in other cases where an offender is convicted of an indictable-only offence the Bill allows courts to pass a custodial sentence without giving reasons and without having to justify the sentence in line with the criteria in clause 1(2).
      There are several reasons why the criteria should be extended to indictable-only offences. The basic argument for the criteria in clause 1 is that having to give reasons to justify custodial sentence of grounds relating to the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public from serious harm is a valuable discipline which should help to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate custodial sentences.
      A subsidiary but important argument is that, if there is a subsequent appeal against the sentence, the existence of the statement of reasons helps everyone involved in the process to decide whether the sentencing court's reasoning was acceptable or not.
      These arguments apply just as much to custodial sentences imposed for indictable-only offences as to custodial sentences for summary or either-way offences.
      Many indictable-only offences cover a very wide spectrum, in some of which a community penalty is entirely appropriate. Robbery, for example, ranges from armed robbery to offences in which the degree of force was relatively slight and the amount stolen small. In recent years about a quarter of offenders convicted of offences

      383
      triable only on indictment—that is, in England and Wales—have been given non-custodial or suspended sentences. In 1986 the figure was 26 per cent., in 1987 it was 25 per cent., in 1988 it was 26 per cent. and in 1989 it was 24 per cent. Therefore, if the statutory criteria do not apply in indictable-only cases, certainly the discipline of applying them would not be present in many cases where a community penalty is a realistic possibility.
      In Committee, Labour Members introduced an amendment to extend the criteria in clause 1 to all indictable-only offences, excluding those for which the penalty is fixed by law. When the amendment was discussed on 29 November, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) said:
      "It would be wrong and inappropriate to require the Crown court to follow the detailed procedures in clauses 1 and 3 in every serious case in which an offender has repeatedly committed serious or violent crimes … We are trying to give guidance to judges about the way that Parliament will seek, in future, to see sentences handed down, but not to go so far as to make a judge sit up straight and say, 'This is ridiculous. Why should I have to give a reason for sentencing someone who has just committed a dreadful aggravated burglary or a terrible rape? Why should I have to go through the hoops and say in open court why this man or, more rarely, this woman should get an immediate custodial sentence?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 November 1990; c. 23–26.]
      The revised amendment meets the point that the Minister made in Committee. In those serious cases where a long prison sentence is inevitable, the judge should not have to give reasons, in line with the criteria for custodial sentences in clause 1. We are arguing that, by imposing a requirement to give reasons for custodial sentences of two years or less, the amendment would ensure that the discipline of applying the criteria in the indictable-only cases makes a community penalty a realistic possibility. An argument against the amendment is that it might tempt judges to pass sentences of more than two years when they would otherwise have passed a short one. However, it is extremely unlikely that judges would give longer sentences simply to avoid giving reasons. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest as a solicitor and an assistant recorder, although the incomes from both sources is not enough even to cover my mortgage, given the interest rate.
      I respect the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Minister in penal reform and sentencing policy. He combines that with a sensitivity and decency that are widely respected on both sides of the House. My query arises out of line 20 and the words "serious harm". Those words have troubled the judiciary. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, one of the criteria for sentencing, which is also set out in clause 1 (2)(b), was that a custodial sentence was needed only when it
      "would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him".
      In dealing with young offenders, the courts felt that "serious harm" meant physical harm, rather than more general harm, to the community. That definition gave judges problems.
      Let us take the example of a 25-year-old man with eight or nine convictions spread over three years. All the convictions are for crimes that are not so serious individually as to give a court a chance to impose a
      384
      custodial sentence. He may have committed what one could call gentle burglaries during the day time, wandering into somebody's house and being a nuisance, although doing so without any aggravating factors against people or breaking in. He may have taken away and driven a car, which is not a serious crime although it is a nasty business for the owner of the car.
      The man may have been dealt with leniently in respect of all those offences—conditionally discharged once, fined, placed on probation, given a bigger fine, given community service, placed on probation again, and so on. He comes before the court and pleads guilty to another single charge of the same sort. Let us place ourselves in the position of the sentencing judge. The court may have concluded that the young man is such a nuisance to his locality, causing trouble by his regular burglaries and taking and driving away, that he should be sentenced to a short period of custody. Under Clause 1(2), is it possible for him to be sent into custody? The first part says that the offence was so serious that only such a sentence could be justified. He will not be caught under that limb, will he? The second part says that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him. It cannot be said that the harm is physical, but equally the harm to the general public might be substantial in terms of nuisance value.
      11.15 pm
      I should like my right hon. Friend to guide me on whether serious harm means physical harm. I would prefer it to mean physical or otherwise, to cover a case like the one that I have mentioned. My right hon. Friend may draw my attention to clause 3(3), which says that previous convictions can be relevant to forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence. If he does, I should like it confirmed, if possible, that the seriousness in effect relates to non-violent and violent behaviour. It is important that judges' hands be not tied too much.
      My right hon. Friend may say that under the legislation there is a possibility of sending someone to prison for such an offence if he is a professional crook, a recidivist—someone who commits burglary professionally time after time. There may be examples of young men who cannot be described as professional crooks but who are perhaps persistent—for want of a better word—nuisances in their own locality. Is there an opportunity under the Bill for them to be sent into custody at any stage? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to help me.
      Mr. John Patten: First, I will deal with amendment No. 86. Then I shall examine the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in his welcome intervention. I shall end with a panegyric in praise of the Government amendments which I hope will carry the House.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for explaining the reasons behind amendment No. 86. It has been said many times during the passage of the Bill that a custodial sentence should be imposed only when it is the just desserts of the offender. We agree on that. However, I do not think that the amendment is helpful in that respect.
      Let me remind myself and the House of what clause 1 does. It imposes restrictions on the use of custody for all summary and either-way offences and for indictable-only offences where the offender has not previously been in

      385
      prison. Indictable-only offences are of their very nature serious. That is why they are indictable only. If the offender has previously served a prison sentence, we do not think that it is right to ask the courts to apply the full rigour of clause 1 before passing sentence. As the clause stands, the courts will know when they begin to sentence whether the offender is someone who should be hit by the full weight of clause 1.
      I understand the reasons for the amendment, but I think that it would create a serious logical difficulty. The poor old court would have to decide whether the offence deserved a sentence of more than two years before it could tell whether clause 1 would apply. If it did, the court would have to start all over again to determine the sentence, this time applying clause 1. So, by virtue of clause 1, the court would have to consider again whether the offence was serious enough to justify the sentence. In such circumstances, the Crown court proceedings would become a logical maze at best or a pantomime at worst. I prefer to rely on the well-known Court of Appeal route to deal with problems arising from wrongful interpretation.
      On the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West—Mr. Assistant Recorder Malins—I think that he is on to a good point in considering seriousness. As he knows, there is nowhere any definition of seriousness. There is not, at the end of an Act, a long schedule or list of things that are judged to be serious or not serious. In the end it is up to Crown court judges, recorders or assistant recorders to decide what is serious and what is not. The example quoted by my hon. Friend of a persistent burglar is covered by clause 3(3), under which the courts can take into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Clearly, in the example given by my hon. Friend, the circumstances of the previous offence aggravate the seriousness of the current offence. There is therefore no need to involve the criterion of protecting from serious harm in such a case, and the people who might be terrorising my hon. Friend's constituency are, I think, catered for adequately by clause 3(3). None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to clarify the point.
      I resisted amending the Bill in Committee because I felt that the arguments adduced for removing the words "or otherwise" from the clause were worthy of consideration, but that we should not rush into it. Having taken a good, long, hard look at the matter, I have concluded that restricting clause 1(2)(b) to violent or sexual offences in line with clause 2(2)(b) is logically correct and will make for simplicity of sentencing. It resolves the logical difficulty that was pointed out in Committee and emphasises the clear distinction between property crimes and violent and sexual crimes that is reflected throughout the other sentencing provisions in the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments.
      Mr. Randall: I confess that I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response. I thought that we had addressed all the arguments that he advanced in Committee and come up with a lovely shiny new amendment that would enable us to put fewer people in prison. The aim was to enable indictable offences to be tested by the criteria in clause 1 and to try to limit the number of indictable offences that were considered by introducing the two-year time scale. I thought that that was rather a novel way of dealing with the matter.
      386
      Many indictable offences now result in non-custodial sentences—about a quarter. I felt that many such cases were not harmful; people were not being put in prison. I thought that the amendment would enable people who had committed such offences to be dealt with outside prison. The motive was good. I think that we should use the amendment as a flag, waving it at the Lords and perhaps persuading them to consider it.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at beginning insert
      'where the offence is a violent or sexual offence'.
      No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'him' to end of line 21.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—
      '(c) and, in the case of a sexual offence, in addition to subsection (2)(a) or (11) above, that the offence involved persons under the age of 16, or the offence took place without the consent of one or more of the persons involved.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 4, and amendments Nos. 36, in page 2, line 35, at end add
      'or
      (c) in the case of a sexual offence, the offence involves persons of the age of 16 or over, and the offence takes place with the consent of all the persons involved.'.
      No. 94, in page 2, line 35, at end insert,
      '; or—
      (c) in the case of a sexual offence, the offence involved persons of the age of 16 or over, and the offence took place with the consent of all the persons involved.'.
      Government amendment No. 14, amendment No. 1, in page 18, line 29, leave out
      '30, 31 and 33 to 36'
      and insert
      '13 and 30 to 36'.
      No. 95, in page 18, line 30, leave out
      'the Sexual Offences Act 1967'
      and insert
      'section 1(3) and (4) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.'.
      No. 38, in page 18, line 30, leave out
      'the Sexual Offences Act 1967.'.
      and Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
      Mr. Cohen: Amendment No. 93 provides that a court shall not pass a custodial sentence unless it believes that the offence involved persons under 16, or that it took place without consent. It applies two principles. First, there should be no discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual offences, which should be dealt with equally under the law; secondly, "consensual" offences involving no victim, and involving people aged 16 or over, do not warrant being classified as serious sex crimes and should not be punished with custodial sentences. I welcome the Government's similar statements of principle. I am thinking, for example, of their amendments in relation to merchant seamen. However, I think that they have come adrift. What I seek to do is to give effect, in law, to those principles.
      A Home Office press release of 8 February refers to the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is in his place. That press release says of clause 25:
      "the provisions are not intended to discriminate against homosexual or heterosexual offences."

      387
      The Minister's letter says:
      "It will therefore be clear from what I have said that the sentencing provisions of the Bill, supported by the definition of 'sexual offences' in clause 25, have nothing to do with increasing the penalty for victimless homosexual offences or, indeed, changing in any way relative seriousness with which the law regards offences of a homosexual, as opposed to a heterosexual, character."
      That explains the principle. Indeed, it follows up a response of the last Home Secretary, whose new name I can never remember. One of my hon. Friends refers to him as Lord Waddington of Strangeways, but perhaps that is a bit too rude. When he was Home Secretary this question was put to him by the hon. Member for Hornchurch:
      "Will he undertake to look closely at clause 25 which, it has been suggested, would increase the punishment for minor offences such as soliciting by men or women? If that is so, I am sure that many hon. Members would suggest that much higher sentences for those offences are not appropriate."
      The then Home Secretary replied:
      "I do not believe that my hon. Friend can be right. Clause 25 does not refer to that. If he will have a word with me afterwards, I shall see whether there is anything I can do to meet his point."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 143.]
      Clearly, the Minister of State, in his letter, is trying to fulfil that undertaking. A Home Office press release of 15 October says:
      "It has never been the Government's intention that the Bill's provisions should increase in a discriminatory way the penalties of homosexual offending."
      While welcoming those principles, I seek to have consenting homosexual behaviour removed from the list of serious sex crimes. It is quite wrong that victimless behaviour should be on a par with genuinely serious sex offences, such as indecent assault or child sex abuse. Indeed, the Government have virtually acknowledged that. The latest press release, issued on 1 February, gives two more examples: coercion of a victim—a schoolmaster abusing a position of trust to take advantage of pupils—and an unsuccessful attempt to entice a young child of either sex to go with the offender. I do not think that those offences need to be covered by this clause; they can be dealt with by existing laws against indecent assault or attempted indecent assault on a child or a man.
      The Government's amendments, although they are welcome, leave in place three types of consenting homosexual behaviour as serious sex crimes. These are soliciting, indecency and procuring. Clearly, the Government are still in a muddle. They deleted procuring from the Sexual Offences Act 1967, but left it in the 1956 Act, which is the most used—in fact, all 346 convictions in 1989 arose from its provisions.
      I will give another example of the way in which the Government are in a muddle. Consenting homosexual soliciting, indecency and procuring are listed in clause 25 as serious sex crimes, but not one of the equivalent heterosexual offences is listed. That runs counter to the principles that the Minister annunciated in his letters.
      This is about sentencing. I want equality and the best way to achieve that is not to imprison either heterosexuals or homosexuals in cases of consenting sexual offences where all the persons involved are 16 or over.
      Soliciting, indecency and procuring are left in the clause. A total of 2,311 people were convicted of those offences in 1989, including 90 people gaoled for up to five years. In addition, some people were given cautions. That
      388
      is the highest level of convictions and cautions since the mid-1950s when homosexuality was still illegal. That is disturbing and we must be concerned that homosexuality could be on the way to being recriminalised. Peter Tatchell, of the organisation Outrage, said:
      "This legislation intensifies the criminalisation of gay sexuality. It reverses the liberalising trend of the last three decades. Clause 25 takes us back to the pre-Wolfenden days when homosexuality was seen as a threat and menace which had to be repressed by law."
      Clearly, the Government have moved a bit since then, but the danger of recriminalisation still remains.
      11.30 pm
      Soliciting and procuring have nothing to do with prostitution. Keeping those offences in clause 25 criminalises attempts to arrange and facilitate homosexual relations, even where those relations are completely legal. Keeping indecency in the clause penalises affectionate acts between men outside the privacy of their own home. That can include things as irrelevant—in my view—as kissing, caressing and hugging and activities at lovers' lane locations. As a result, we often have elaborate and expensive police entrapment arrangements. Heterosexual couples involved in similar behaviour are almost never prosecuted.
      Seven types of commonplace homosexual behaviour are covered by the three items still included in clause 25. These include: introducing two men who fancy each other and subsequently have sex; allowing two men to stay overnight in one's house and to have sex in one's spare bedroom; cruising and chatting up other men or exchanging names and telephone numbers in a public place; all gay sex where more than two people participate; any form of homosexual activity involving a man aged between 16 and 21; gay sex in a bedroom in a private house while other people are present in other rooms, for example, a flatmate watching television in the living room, and all sexual or affectionate contact between gay and bisexual men of any age outside the privacy of their own home—including cottaging, sex in lovers' lane type locations and even mere caressing, kissing and cuddling. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that those should not be categorised as serious sex crimes resulting in imprisonment.
      There are three other disparate but relevant matters. I have written to the Minister about sentencing in my area. Waltham Forest courts have been handing out fines of about £250 to gay and bisexual men convicted of consensual indecency. Yet the same judges have fined men only £50 for brutal sexual assaults on women and only £20 for racist abuse and threatening behaviour. That cannot be satisfactory.
      A constituent of mine, Ms. Woolfson, has written to me saying:
      "We are supposed to be living in a `free' society, but it seems that the Government is imposing a certain or conforming standard of existence on its subjects. Surely people should have the right to make up their own minds how to live their lives, (without harming others of course).
      Many homosexual people live ordinary lives without harm to anyone.
      If clause 25 becomes law, judges will have the power to impose much harsher sentences on gay and bisexual men convicted of consenting behaviour and thousands more gay men could face imprisonment and wrecked lives."
      I received a letter from the National Association of Probation Officers. It says that the clause has no equivalent in other European jurisdictions and that

      389
      "Some courts may construe this behaviour as physically or psychologically harmful. In view of the extent of homophobia within the criminal justice system, NAPO would support continued attempts to delete the two above offences from clause 25.
      Repeat offences are not commonplace. The law criminalises activity which is not unlawful in most of Europe and which, for many men, is the only feasible means of sexual contact."
      It is wrong to put consenting offences by homosexuals on a par with the sexual abuse of children. The Government's formula that those offences may be "physically or psychologically injurious" to members of the public is a gross loophole, because it is poorly defined and gives huge discretionary powers to the court. Judges may be intolerant or illiberal and impose severe punishment. Alan Sampson of the Prison Reform Trust says that he fears that the powers in clause 25 could be misused.
      The issue is consent, and all consenting offences should be deleted from the list of serious sex crimes in clause 25. I urge the Minister to accept my amendments, which would implement the Government's stated intentions, or at least to give a firm commitment that they will think again and table new amendments.
      Mr. Robin Squire: The amendments are important, but the fact that we are debating them at a late hour inevitably means that we will probably not do them justice. I shall not detain the House, partly because my voice is going.
      I welcome the Government amendments. My right hon. Friend the Minister received appeals and was under pressure, if that is the right word, from several of my hon. Friends and others on the original wording of clause 25. He rightly understood that it was capable of misinterpretation. The points made by the Stonewall group were welcomed and valuable and they enable the Government amendments to clarify much of what was creating considerable concern among the lesbian and gay men community. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give due recognition to the support that he received from it.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not closed his mind to further amendments to the clause. I shall not echo the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), although he made several legitimate points that should find sympathy among hon. Members.
      We should carefully consider whether the clause would apply to consensual offences. Amendments moved in another place could make clear the crimes from which we are determined to protect the public, particularly our youth, but stress that different considerations apply to adults.
      I hope that the Government will carefully monitor the way in which the courts interpret the clause. I do not doubt the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister, to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. My right hon. Friend is an honourable man and I know that he means what he says. The way in which the clause works in practice will determine the way in which people respond to the Bill and to the Government's improvements to it. I support the Government's amendments.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who said on Second Reading
      390
      that there was a problem. The problem was not one that the Government set out to create but one into which they stumbled because of the drafting.
      We had a brief debate in Standing Committee, when I pressed the Minister to think further about this matter. I am grateful to him for tabling some amendments at this stage. I view this matter slightly wryly, because some hon. Members criticised me for not pressing the measure to a vote in Committee. We have done better by not having a vote and getting the Minister to consider it again. I urge my hon. Friend not to press for a vote tonight, in the hope that he will consider it further. He has gone a long way towards meeting our worries, although considerable concerns still exist.
      The first principle of the law is that it should protect people from the activities of others. I find it difficult to envisage the concept of a victimless crime. We do not need to involve the law in protecting individuals from consenting acts. I accept that young people must be protected, but it is odd that we have a law that says that people may participate in heterosexual activities when they are 16 but we restrict people from participating in homosexual activities until they are 18. That is illogical. We cannot alter that in the Bill; we can only alter the nature of the crime.
      It is worrying that people can be kept in prison not on the basis that they are being punished but so that society can be protected from them. There should be somewhere more appropriate than prison to keep people if they are a danger to society, having already served their sentence.
      The Government are increasing the penalties for those who commit serious crime in order to reduce it and to protect the public from it. In clause 25, they have scooped into the pool a series of serious crimes. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the offences that are still in this category which involve consenting adults, and assure us that he does not intend that the courts should increase the penalties.
      The Bill is designed to increase penalties and increase protection, and one would not expect the courts to increase the punishments imposed on those who commit serious crimes in this category. That is not what the Government intended, and it is not what should happen. I understand that groups such as Stonewall feel that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting their concerns. Outrage and Peter Tatchell feel that they have not gone far enough. Much of the difficulty arises from the Bill's complicated construction and the fact that it refers to two previous pieces of legislation.
      I shall listen carefully to the Minister's explanation of how he intends the Bill to operate. I hope that he will listen to the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members this evening and consider the written evidence that is submitted to him. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet a delegation of Opposition Members. I suspect that some Conservative Members may want to meet him as well. I hope that he will give consideration to changing the wording of the clause when the Bill is considered in another place so that what he intends to happen, and what I think the House wants to happen, is clearly and obviously set out in the Bill.
      That will ensure that, when the Bill is enacted, the law will be clear and obvious to judges when they have to administer it. It should be clear that there is no intention to increase the penalty for the crimes that we are

      391
      discussing. I hope that we shall be able to listen to the Minister in a spirit of trying to get the law right, and not in one of confrontation.
      11.45 pm
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
      "This is not the occasion to debate the rights and wrongs of the existing structure of sexual offences as they affect homosexual activity and hetebhzxual activity."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 18 December, c. 314.]
      It never seems the right occasion to do so.
      Sodomy is unhygienic, unhealthy and still the major cause of the spread of AIDS. If some highly paid actors form a group, flaunt their own perversion and wish to protect others from custodial sentences, that does not seem to me to be a good reason to soften clause 25, or any others, to satisfy their sensitivity for such persons.
      The general public still detest these perversions and are anxious that the flaunting of them should not encourage young and impressionable teenagers to copy unpleasent examples, consenting or otherwise. These perversions cause a great deal of harm, even if they are carried out with consent.
      The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said that the clause would lead to the recriminalising of homosexual activity. There are many who wish that it would. Why should the public have to wait for
      "further such offences to be committed by him"?
      If the amendment were to read,
      "further such offences that might otherwise be committed by him",
      it might be more acceptable. As it stands, it is bolting the stable door after the horse has fled.
      The Bill as a whole is a good one, and I shall be sorry if any amendments introduced by the Government, or tolerated by them, in response to fashionable pressure should encourage, or fail to discourage, these very unpleasant perversions.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am tempted to think—this may be a bit mischievous—that the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was that of an agent provocateur. I understand that we should not be seeking to redefine in this Bill the characteristics of a range of sexual offences, and I do not think that anyone is seeking to do that.
      I am grateful, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), for the co-operation of the Minister of State and his Department when we, and others, have made representations and inquiries of our own and on behalf of others on this subject. That co-operation reduced to a squall what had seemed likely to be a stormy debate, and I hope that the squall can be reduced to a calm sea in due course. The amendments that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and I have signed are seeking to do just that.
      I hope that all Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Lancaster, will accept that there is a logic in doing what those who support the amendments seek to make possible. There are simple objectives of principle. First, it is sought to prevent the imprisonment, or potential imprisonment, of those who are victimless in the normal sense of the word and who are over 16 years of age. There
      392
      is no attempt here to change the legality of actions over 16. But in a society in which far too many people are in prison, we should be seeking to avoid sending to prison, or risking doing so, those involved in victimless offences.
      The amendments seek to exclude those who are vulnerable. The Minister rightly said that we must be careful that we do not suddenly exclude from severe penalty those who abuse positions of power. An obvious example has been cited. I refer to those who hang about school playgrounds and interfere with young children. Society must rightly be firm in relation to such people's anti-social and criminal behaviour. We must draw a clear line between such abuse of young people and a more consensual form of activity.
      We must also protect, as the amendments seek to do, those of a lower mental age who are clearly not capable of making adult decisions and who, tragically, are often also the victims of abuse. We must be careful that the line is drawn on the correct side in relation to them.
      Although I have not had the opportunity personally to check the statistics, I must advise the Minister that the evidence shows that the present law appears to be used overwhelmingly against allegedly gay activity, rather than other activity. That suggests a lack of equity, and therefore discrimination. The second objective of principle is that we must seek to avoid discrimination in the application of the law.
      Although these matters may be fairly academic to hon. Members, these offences can cause enormous stress and concern to individuals who get caught up in this area of the law. Before I was elected to this House, as a lawyer I both prosecuted and defended, and in cases under the Sexual Offences Act I have seen the trauma that is caused to people who are taken out of their normal family life on these types of charges and find themselves in court. They are not only publicly exposed, tried and fined, but sometimes imprisoned. That is an unjustified double penalty.
      Although I have not received enormous numbers of constituency representations on this matter, I have received sensible representations from a few of my constituents, one or two of whom have made the clear point that the Bill, which has now been improved considerably, needs to be further improved if it is not to make their lives far more risky and discriminated against in terms of criminalisation than the lives of many of our other citizens.
      I hope that the mood of the House, which was detected by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and others, is that although we recognise that the Government have already to an extent responded to the problem—perhaps no one at the Home Office foresaw this legislative entrapment—with a bit more effort on both sides, we can ensure that we do not pass something that we do not intend. We must ensure that we end up with clear legislation which does not criminalise when it should not, does not discriminate, is consistent with civil liberties, minimises the number of people in prison, and yet wholly protects those who are vulnerable.
      Mr. Chris Smith: You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I do not follow point by point the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), passionately though I disagree with its content and the colour of her language.

      393
      The Government will appreciate the degree of concern felt in the lesbian and gay community over the original proposal in clause 25 when it first saw the light of day. To many people, it seemed as though the Government were intent on increasing the penalties for activities which, while technically illegal, were entirely consensual and victimless. That apparent threat comes at a time when lesbians and gay men face discrimination in many aspects of their lives; when gay men are increasingly being violently attacked in the streets and outside pubs and clubs throughout the land; when many gay men are heroically engaged in the battle against HIV and AIDS; and when many of us had hoped that we might be making progress on the rights of the millions of our citizens who are lesbian or gay, not retreating back wards.
      Therefore, I give a warm welcome to the changes that the Government are making to clause 25. They have gone a long way to relieving widespread anxieties. However, I do not believe that they go far enough. I urge the Government to go the extra mile.
      I shall deal first with the clause. The Government are removing three of the five offences which caused concern from the list of potentially serious offences—those relating to the crews of merchant ships, procuring, and living on the earnings of male prostitution. They have also clarified the definition of the serious harm which has to be caused before the stiffer penalties of clause 25 can be triggered. So far, so good. But we have to ask why the Government have left in the offences of indecency between men and solicitation by men. Those are overwhelmingly minor, consensual activities, yet they will still be included in a list along with truly serious matters such as child sex abuse.
      There are still a disturbing number of convictions for those two offences every year. I put four specific points on those offences to the Government. First, the offences are discriminatory and are used against gay men exclusively, or almost so. Secondly, they are widely used in cases of police entrapment. Hardly ever has a member of the public appeared in court to complain that they were the victim of a supposed approach under either of the offences.
      Thirdly, if, as they said in the press notice issued together with the amendments when they were published, the Government have valid anxieties about cases such as a headmaster taking advantage of a pupil or the enticement of a child, other powers are available—such as the offence of indecent assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The Government simply do not need the powers in clause 25 to tackle a serious offender such as they describe. Meanwhile, scores of far more innocent people would be put at risk, albeit a qualified risk, of severer sentencing.
      Fourthly, the continued inclusion of the two offences perpetuates the adverse labelling of gay men and gay relationships as second class and less valid and valued than the loves and relationships of others. To do so diminishes our democracy in a real sense. I strongly urge the Government to think again about including those two offences in clause 25. The Minister said, and I appreciated him saying it, that he did not wish to be discriminatory. He said that he did not wish to increase the penalties for relatively innocent gay men. Let him, therefore, accept amendment No. 1 and put the matter entirely beyond doubt.
      I urge the Government to go further still. The law still discriminates massively against lesbians and gay men. I,
      394
      for one, will not rest until proper and full equality before the law, coupled with freedom from discrimination, has been achieved.
      It is worth reminding ourselves of the absurdities of the present legal position. Sex is legal between a man and a woman at 16. Effectively, it is legal between two women at 16. But between two men it is legal only at 21. Let us compare the position in other European countries. In all the following countries there is complete equality in the age of consent. In Denmark it is 15; in France it is 15; in Greece it is 15; in Italy it is 14; in the Netherlands it is 16; in Spain it is 12; in Norway it is 16; in Sweden it is 15; in Poland it is 15; and even in Albania it is 14. Yet here in Britain the law is grossly discriminatory.
      I appreciate that it is difficult in our consideration of the Bill to achieve such equality now, but amendment No. 93 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is at least a small step in that direction. Under that amendment when an act takes place entirely with the consent of the parties involved and both or all are over the age of 16, an offence might still have been committed, but it would not be imprisonable. That is a step in the right direction.
      I ask the Government to acknowledge the confused and discriminatory nature of our sexual offences laws. The age of consent obviously discriminates by a margin of five years. Some indecency and other offences are used exclusively against gay men. A variety of consensual and victimless activities are regarded, quite unjustifiably, as criminal.
      A root-and-branch review is long overdue and I hope and trust that the Government will agree to set such a review in motion as a matter of urgency.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Michael Brown: The hour is late and I do not want to detain the House long, but I should like to endorse much of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I also thank my right hon. Friend for meeting a delegation from Stonewall. As a result, much progress was made on a number of items connected with clause 25.
      I agree with other hon. Members that there is still some way to go. There is still discrimination against victimless crime and, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, that underlines the need for a root-and branch reform of the law on gay sex. Problems still arise because of the attitude of the police and the courts towards soliciting and what is called "gross indecency". A great deal of discrimination still exists that cannot be put right by the Bill alone, the welcome amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the spirit in which opinions have been expressed.
      When we compare the state of the law in this country with that in other Community countries and elsewhere in Europe, there is a strong case for a law commission to be appointed to study the subject. It should address many of the grievances that gay men and lesbians legitimately express.
      Gay men and lesbians can be reassured by my right hon. Friend's comment in the press notice issued recently that he is anxious to ensure that the Bill, once enacted, does not add to existing discrimination. However, the

      395
      arguments advanced tonight should be addressed by the Home Office in a full comprehensive review of the law on this subject.
      Mr. Maclennan: I need not detain the House, because the points have been made extremely effectively by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I should put it on record, however, that it is the view of my party that a review of the kind called for by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is a matter of urgency. We hope that the Government will take the opportunity, if not here then in another place, of the passage of Bill to announce such a review.
      Mr. Sheerman: I do not want to detain the House. The Government's proposals on clause 25, together with the changes to clauses 1 and 2, represent a major shift in their position, which we welcome.
      The Government have considerably tightened the definition of serious harm to mean
      "death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological".
      That should make it clear that consensual acts between men are not intended to be covered by clauses 1 and 2. We welcome the Government's recognition of the strength of our arguments and those advanced by other hon. Members and outside lobbies.
      However, while procuring has been removed from clause 25, soliciting and indecency remain. I understand the Government's argument that they are needed for the very few coercive acts that can arise, but is it necessary to retain indecency within clause 25? Cannot the coercive offences about which we are all concerned be tackled by means of different legislation? Of course, I am running into the issues raised by other hon. Members about the need for a review of the law.
      We are also worried that, despite the Government's intentions, some consensual offences may still be caught by clauses 1 and 2. The Labour party intends to return to that issue in another place and to introduce amendments to tighten up the definition of clauses 1 and 2 to ensure that consensual offences cannot fall within their scope.
      It will be important to monitor the legislation to ensure that it has the desired effect. More generally, the debate has shown what a mess the sexual offences legislation is in. Genuinely consensual offences can be, and are, dealt with under the same statutes as behaviour that is dangerous to the public. That cannot be right. The law is in need of urgent reform. I have been extremely impressed by the quality of contributions from both sides of the House, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.
      Mr. John Patten: I was interested to hear the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and the brief but welcome contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I was also pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who initially raised the flag in Standing Committee in his powerful speech. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for
      396
      Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also contributed. That is quite a gallery of talent and we heard a range of views.
      It is clear that a number of different agendas are running, not just the one with which I am concerned—the protection of children, women or boys from serious and violent crime by homosexuals or heterosexuals. I do not decry the other agendas that involve major reforms of sexual law in this country. To Opposition Members in particular, I must say that the Bill does not address that subject. It is a Criminal Justice Bill, and the measures before us ensure that the public, the vulnerable public, the mentally handicapped, the young and others are properly protected. That is why we initially tackled the subject, and I intend to address the burden of my remarks to those issues, although the House will have noted what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others have said about other agendas.
      There is much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on what has become known as the clause 25 issue, although it is a complete mistake to call it that because it relates to clause 1. The issue rests on clause 1, and the Government amendments deal adequately, through the clause 1 framework, with the problems which have been wrongly perceived to be contained in the list of offences in clause 25. I can understand how people unfamiliar with reading parliamentary legislation and Bills could think that there were awful designs and intends lurking in the legislation.
      Mr. Archer: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Patten: I was just getting into my stride—does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to interrupt me? It is very late and I must try to keep awake, but if he really wants me to I shall give way.
      Mr. Archer: I did not want to interrupt the Minister's stride, but his argument will not do—clause I must be judged according to the offences on which it bites.
      Mr. Patten: Indeed, but we must also consider what amendment No. 4 states, which is:
      "protecting the public from serious harm from him"—
      —the word "hit" is used in a legislative way to refer to him or her—
      "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."
      In other words, it is only if the offender can be shown to have caused death or serious physical or psychological damage that clause 25 will have any effect.
      Clause 25 defines the term sexual offence for the purpose of part I of the Bill. The key use of the expression is in clauses 1 and 2, which enable courts to give longer custodial sentences than are strictly justified, according to the seriousness of the offence. I am sure that no hon. Member would dissent from the view that the courts must be given adequate powers to protect the general public from those who commit these forms of sexual and violent offences.
      I rapidly learnt when the debates on this issue began that there were misapprehensions about it outside the House. Following discussions between the thoroughly responsible organisation Stonewall and myself, the Government effected the changes incorporated in the Government amendments to the Bill. We have sought to

      397
      put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt and to allay the concerns that have been voiced. The answer that I gave the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) a moment ago showed that clause 25 offences will be brought into play only when the public need protection from death or serious physical or psychological harm.
      We have moved a long way to try to satisfy the understandable anxieties of people in the outside world——
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has moved so far to allay those concerns that he has aroused the concern of people who take a different view.
      Mr. Patten: I am sorry if my hon. Friend finds it unsatisfactory that the Bill should allow courts to impose longer sentences on homosexual or hetrosexual men or women who inflict death or serious physical or psychological harm on members of the public. I think that my hon. Friend is probably worried about the wider issue of sexual law reform, which is not strictly the subject of this Bill.
      It has been suggested that I should see an all-party group of Members. I should have been delighted to welcome Members for a Home Office cup of tea at any time in the past. I wish that hon. Members had been to see me earlier. My door is always open, my kettle always on the boil. I should be happy to hold a meeting before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. Not only have we travelled a long way to accommodate the views of people in the outside world; I believe that we have got the balance right, so I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Cohen: I shall not repeat my speech. The Minister is right to say that the Government have moved a long way, but neither I nor a number of people who have spoken in the debate—and people outside this place—believe that he has got the balance right yet. Victimless offences should not be deemed serious sex crimes punishable by imprisonment.
      However, I hear what the Minister has said. He agreed to meet a delegation. His mind is not completely closed. I welcome that. It hope that we can persuade him to make some changes over the cup of tea that he is offering.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      12.15 am
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
      `(6A) In thissection and section 2 below any reference, in relation to an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him.'—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 2, line 28, after `offence', insert
      `or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6 to 9.
      Mr. Sheerman: Very briefly, because I recognise the lateness of the hour, we understand and accept amendment No. 7 but we oppose Nos. 8 and 9. We are
      398
      very concerned that the amendments extend the power to impose longer terms of imprisonment for violent and sexual offenders to magistrates courts. This is a worrying extension of powers which could lead to greater inconsistency in decisions between magistrates courts.
      It is hard to see how it could possibly protect the public from death or serious personal injury. Any serious triable either-way offence will be sent to the Crown court. Where the offence is not that serious, surely this power is not required. Magistrates courts can sentence to a maximum of six months for one offence or 12 months for more than one offence, and if they would have sentenced someone to four months but decide on six months as a result of this clause one cannot envisage that it would protect the public very much from death or serious personal injury; it would, however, lead to greater discrepancies between magistrates courts for the same offence.
      That is our worry. We are not going to push this to a vote or anything silly like that, but we think that it is important to flag it up at this time of the evening.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 29, leave out `those proceedings' and insert
      `the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 2

      LENGTH OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert
      `which is triable either way or only summarily'.
      No. 8, in page 2, line 41, leave out
      `passed by the Crown Court'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 87.
      Mr. John Patten: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is probably entirely my fault, but was Government amendment No. 9 called?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Government amendment No. 9 comes next. In between we have an Opposition amendment, No. 87, to deal with.
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 2, line 42, after 'offence', insert
      `where the offender has been previously convicted of one or more such offences'.
      This amendment would restrict the provisions for courts to give violent or sexual offenders and those with previous records of violent or sexual offences longer sentences than the offence deserves. Clause 2(2)(b) empowers courts to give violent or sexual offenders sentences longer than the offence deserves if they consider it necessary to protect the public from serious harm by the offender.
      This provision is not aimed at offenders who commit the most serious offences. Those offences which are triable only on indictment are excluded from clause 2 and would continue to be governed by the present sentencing criteria. Those offenders would, therefore, continue to receive lengthy sentences in line with Court of Appeal guidance which has produced swingeing increases in lengths of sentence for violent and sexual offences since the mid-1980s.

      399
      According to the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" of February 1990, this provision is aimed at offenders convicted of less serious offences, but where the court realises that they are at serious risk of causing actual bodily harm which would merit a 12-month sentence. Under the proposed legislation the Crown court could give a longer sentence up to a maximum of five years if it considered it necessary to protect the public from serious harm by the offender.
      In public statements before the Bill was published, the Minister justified the proposal on the ground that it was needed for persistently violent sexual offenders whose previous pattern of offending led the court to believe that they were a serious risk to the public. However, there is no reference to "persistence" in the clause.
      In the absence of a history of previous offences, there can be no grounds for concluding that the first-time offender who is before the court for a minor offence against the person must be in prison for longer than the offence deserves to protect the public from serious harm.
      When the amendment was discussed in Committee on 6 December, the Minister referred to it as an "excellent" amendment, and agreed to reflect on it. By tabling the amendment again, we have given him the opportunity to inform the House of the results of his reflection.
      Mr. John Patten: It was an excellent, extremely well-drafted amendment. I have reflected on it, and the Opposition are still wrong and I am right, for the following reasons. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was right in saying that the policy that sentences longer than can be justified by the seriousness of the offence should be available for persistent, violent and sexual offenders was set out in the White Paper. This is the group of offenders most likely to be a risk to the public and about which the House has the greatest concern.
      It is also likely that the offenders for whom the courts judge a longer sentence to be appropriate are likely to have previous convictions, most of the time of a nature similar to the offence for which they have been convicted, and would therefore satisfy the test set in the Opposition's excellently drafted amendment. I do not disssent from what it is trying to achieve. However, we need to consider carefully whether we can rely on offenders from whom the public needs to be protected always having previous convictions of a similar nature. This may be exceptional to rare, but there may be offenders whom the courts judge, from their pattern of behaviour, to be dangerous but who have never been convicted before. In some cases, they may have been convicted when younger, but were only cautioned, although a series of cautions would show the way in which they were developing.
      The protection of the public from dangerous offenders is so important that it would not be right to let the courts' ability to afford the public this protection to hang on whether the offender had previous convictions. In Committee, we were often told that nothing should be ruled out when writing legislation because we have to provide for the exceptional, strange or peculiar case. That is what we are doing in resisting the amendment.
      Mr. Randall: That is a disappointing reply to what we thought was a radical and forward-looking amendment. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 1 leave out 'Crown'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 3

      PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 3, line 21 insert—
      '(d) take into account any reparation made by the offender.'.
      In recent legislation, attention has rightly been given to holding offenders accountable by requiring them to make reparations for their offences through compensation orders and community service orders. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 also allows courts to take account of reparations made during deferment of sentence. The amendment would extend the principle to give offenders an opportunity and an incentive to make reparation even before the case comes to court.
      We believe that this could be done in the framework of a reparation projection. Those projects have been shown, in Home Office research, to be widely welcomed by victims who have taken part in them. A similar amendment debated in Committee was not accepted by the Government on the ground that its terms were already covered by clause 3. It is submitted, however, that the argument is based on a misconception of the nature of reparation. When the Bill refers to the offender's attitude to the offence and to his physical and mental condition, those are traditional criteria related to mitigation of sentence or to the choice of a rehabilitative sentence. Reparation, however is a different concept because it is based not solely on measures imposed on the offender but on the impact on the victim.
      Some reparation projects go further and provide for mediation between victim and offender, provided that both are willing. That can be beneficial to victims and offenders. The amendment is intended to draw the attention of courts to the distinction and to encourage them to take account of any efforts by an offender to make amends to the victim. It would also allow the reparation to be done much sooner.
      Mr. John Patten: It is common ground between us that if an offender has made or is willing to make reparation for his offence, for example, by returning stolen property or making good criminal damage, he should get credit for that. It is our intention that that should be capable of being taken into account under clause 3(1)(b). The issue was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in relation to mitigating and aggravating factors. The court should regard it as a factor in mitigation if the offender has made reparation or is willing to make it.
      I think that the point is already covered, but I have listened to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has said, and between now and when the Bill is dealt with in another place I will consider further whether it yet provides adequately for mitigation generally. An important point is involved; I do not dissent from that. I shall certainly bear in mind in doing so what the hon. Gentleman has said.
      My consideration will also cover the point about credit for time spent in custody abroad when awaiting extradition which exercises the right hon. and learned

      401
      Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). The matter was discussed by him and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on new clause 12.
      I hope that, having heard those kindly words, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will withdraw the amendment immediately.
      Mr. Randall: Again I am terribly disappointed, although that was the most positive reply that we have had from the Minister in Committee or on Report. I am sure that their Lordships will note the words of the Minister and I hope that there will be a string of superb amendments based on the one that we have constructed, so that this provision may be included in the legislation. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      ORDERS COMBINING PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 70, ill page 8, line 48, at end insert—
      '(2A) A court shall not make a combination Order unless it would have imposed a custodial sentence if it had not made such an Order.'.
      The amendment would require courts to use the new combined probation and community service order only when they would otherwise have imposed a custodial sentence. The aim of the new combination order is to provide the courts with a new, intensive and demanding penalty which would be a credible alternative to custody for many offenders who are currently in prison. However, there is no guidance to that effect in the Bill.
      In the absence of such guidance, there is every possibility that the courts will use the new order for many offenders who would currently receive probation orders, community service orders or other existing community penalties. That has happened in the past with other new non-custodial penalties. For example, the community service order introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1972 was intended primarily as a alternative to custody, yet Home Office research a few years after its introduction found that only 45 to 50 per cent. of such orders were being passed on offenders who would otherwise have gone to prison. That was established by Home Office research study No. 39, entitled "Community Service Assessed in 1976" and printed in 1977.
      The greatest risk lies in the fact that the more requirements are imposed on offenders, the greater the chance that the offender will break one of the conditions, will be returned to court for that breach and will be imprisoned. If the combination order were widely used, rather than the existing non-custodial penalities, it could lead to the imprisonment for breach of many offenders who would not otherwise have been at risk of custody. We feel that the Bill should stipulate that courts use the combination order only when they would otherwise have passed a custodial sentence.
      12.30 am
      When the amendment was debated in Committee on 13 December, the Minister said:
      "The one thing that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I do not wish to see on the face of the Bill is the outmoded concept of a sentence as an alternative to a prison sentence. We want offenders—men and women, boys and
      402
      girls—to be sentenced to the correct punishment and for them to get their just deserts".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 December 1990; c. 250.]
      There is, however, no contradiction between the amendment and the idea that the severity of the sentence should reflect the offender's just deserts. The combination order will be the more intensive community penalty available to the courts. We feel that reserving it for more serious cases that would currently receive a custodial sentence would reinforce the idea that the most intensive penalties should be for the offences that deserve them.
      Mr. John Patten: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that the combination order should not be used indiscriminately and, in particular, should not be used when an ordinary probation or community service order would be adequate. However, the yardstick for any community sentence, including a combination order, is set out very clearly in clause 5(2): under subsection (2)(b), the restrictions on liberty in an order are to be
      "commensurate with the seriousness of the offence".
      Such a restriction on liberty is likely to be among the greatest of all community penalties, which is why it is appropriate for the more serious offences to be punished in that way. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Randall: It is with great disappointment that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      CURFEW ORDERS
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 9, line 10, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.
      At this time of night, an hon. Member hopes that someone will immediately sentence him to bed! The Whip has been talking to me very sternly, and I shall speak very briefly; I have only four pages of notes.
      The amendment gives me the opportunity to raise our real concern about, and fundamental opposition to, the proposals for curfews enforced by electronic monitoring, especially when they are applied to young people. In this, the Opposition have the support of the Penal Affairs Consortium and many organisations involved with the criminal justice system.
      We consider the curfew order a negative system: it neither involves the offender in socially useful activity nor engages professionals to encourage him away from a criminal path. We believe that alternatives to custody should be interactive, giving people a positive activity to change their lives.
      Since 1982, the courts have had power to impose night restriction orders on juveniles as a condition of supervision orders, but very little use has been made of that power. In 1988, in the whole of England and Wales, fewer than 10 such requirements were imposed as conditions of supervision orders. During the same period, the courts made enormous use of constructive community measures, such as community service and supervised activity programmes for young offenders.
      Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee know my arguments reasonably well. We dislike this whole group of proposals. In Committee, we opposed them root and branch, and we have continued to do so on Report.

      403
      We shall be very surprised if the Government, in response to our case, say anything that will make us anything other than very disappointed, but at this time of the night we shall not push the matter to a vote.
      Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), by saying that the Opposition will not push this matter to a vote, has already got his retaliation—or his lack of retaliation—in. However, I want to say one or two things about this matter.
      The suggestion that people of 16 or 17 cannot accept responsibility for their behaviour is nonsense. People of that age—especially young men—who cause mayhem should be treated as adults. On the other hand, I should like to see a wimpish 18-year-old who is not grown-up treated as a child. We must develop a much more sophisticated means of dealing with young offenders, so that their maturity may be judged as objectively as possible. I happen to believe that, by making available to the courts a range of penalties which are tough and demanding, and which take account of different patterns of offending, we shall help to minimise the use of custody. I have no doubt at all that curfew orders in respect of people of 16 or 17 will make a very valuable contribution to the sentencing arrangements.
      On this matter, there is a very wide difference between the hon. Member for Huddersfield and myself. At this stage, I cannot say anything to persuade him. He has said that he will not press the amendment to a vote. I happen to be in a position to tell him that, should the matter be pursued in another place, mighty battalions, led by my noble Friend Lord Waddington, will be able to repeat the punishment.
      Mr. Sheerman: Following the Minister's concluding remark, the Whip is urging me to press the matter to a vote.
      I am very disappointed that the Minister has not responded to the case made by the Home Office research and planning unit's evaluation of the recent electronic monitoring experiments at three magistrates courts. All the research has shown that electronic monitoring has been a disaster and is not cost-effective. Indeed, it is enormously expensive, and the reports on it suggest that it would be very difficult to make it a cost-effective alternative.
      On practical grounds, moral grounds and grounds of pragmatism, this is the wrong kind of measure. We believe that it will be a Home Office white elephant. Magistrates will not use it, and probation officers will have difficulty with it. We believe that benign neglect will result in its death.
      In view of the lateness of the hour, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16

      FIXING OF CERTAIN FINES BY REFERENCE TO UNITS
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 13, line 9, after "above)", insert
      "unless the court is satisfied that this would be unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the offender".
      404
      This amendment would allow courts operating the unit fine system to calculate an offender's weekly disposable income at less than £4 where to calculate it at £4 would be unreasonable.
      The means-related unit fine system, which this clause extends nationally, has been widely welcomed as an important and valuable reform. At the four courts where unit fine experiments have been conducted—Basingstoke, Bradford, Swansea and Teesside—the system has markedly improved the rate of payment of fines and has reduced the fines imposed on poor offenders to a much more realistic level, and at three of the four courts it has produced falls of between 24 per cent. and 27 per cent. in the numbers of people imprisoned for fine default. The fourth court, Basingstoke, rarely imprisoned offenders for fine defaults even before the experiment.
      Under the unit fine system, the size of the fine is determined by multiplying a number of units representing the seriousness of the offence by the weekly disposable income of the offender. Clause 16 stipulates that the disposable income of the offender must not be assessed at below £4 per week. The reason for that is easy to discern: it is intended to avoid setting fines at such low levels that they might appear derisory. The four courts involved in the experiment all set themselves minimum levels for that reason. Three of the four courts set a minimum amount of £3 per week, and Bradford set a minimum of £5. However, those amounts were not legally binding and the courts did not invariably keep to them. They were simply general rules that each court laid down for itself, from which it could depart when it saw fit. In practice, the courts often did so when faced with poverty-stricken offenders.
      The Home Office evaluation of the experiments—reported in Home Office research and planning unit paper 50 entitled "Unit Fines: Experiments in Four Courts in 1990"—found that, although Bradford had a nominal weekly minimum of £5, in practice 34 per cent. of fines were set at £3 or less, with 11 per cent. being set at £1 or
      £2 per week. At Swansea, 41 per cent. of fines were set at £3 per week or less, with 13 per cent. being set at £1 or £2 per week. At Teesside, the area of highest unemployment, nearly half—47 per cent.—of the fines were set at £3 per week or less, with 39 per cent. set at £1 or £2 per week. At the fourth court, Basingstoke, which is a better-off area, there were few fines below £3 per week, although even those magistrates fined the occasional offender £1 or £2 per week.
      We believe that the amendment would bring the statutory framework for unit fines in clause 16 into line with the practice of the successful pilot areas. To enact a rigid £4 a week minimum would reduce the benefit of an otherwise admirable measure to inject greater credibility and fairness into the system for imposing fines.
      Mr. John Patten: I cannot accept this amendment. Giving the courts the discretion to set a value lower than £4 a week runs the risk of setting up a system such that the monetary value of the fine would become derisory. As I have said many times, the victim cannot and must not be forgotten. Whenever I am tempted to forget the victim, the ghost of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) looms up behind me to remind me of the importance of victims and of proper punishment.
      I am not prepared to promote a system that could lead to the setting of such small fines that the victim is left feeling that the criminal justice system has no regard for

      405
      the pain tha the or she has felt or for the loss of property that he or she has suffered. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) did not, on this occasion, get his capitulation in first by saying that he would not pursue the amendment to a Division, but I hope that he will not.
      Mr. Randall: I am disappointed with the Minister's comments, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 20

      DEFAULT IN OTHER CASES
      Amendments made: No. 10, in page 15, line 21, leave out from `Act' to `and' in line 22.
      No. 11, in page 15, line 37, at end insert the following subsection—

      '(1A) For the Table in section 407(1A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (maximum period of imprisonment for failure to pay fine or find caution) there shall be substituted the following Table—

      "Amount of fine or caution

      Maximum period of imprisonment

      An amount not exceeding £200

      7 days

      An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500

      14 days

      An amount exceeding £500 but not exceeding £1,000

      28 days

      An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,500

      45 days

      An amount exceeding £2,500 but not exceeding £5,000

      3 months

      An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000

      6 months

      An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000

      12 months

      An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000

      18 months

      An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000

      2 years

      An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000

      3 years

      An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million

      5 years

      An amount exceeding £1 million

      10 years.".'.

      [Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 21

      RECOVERY OF FINES ETC. BY DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT.
      Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 16, line 12 at end insert—
      `(a) provision that, before making an application, the court shall have first obtained the agreement of the offender to the application, unless default has been made in payment;'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 12.
      12.45 am
      Mr. John Patten: I am unable to accept amendment No. 96. Labour Members' attempts to test the perfect management of the Bill will not succeed.
      The amendment would limit deductions from benefit to pay fines to cases where the defendent had consented or
      406
      where default in payment had occurred. It would not be sensible to include such restrictions in the Bill. We intend the deduction arrangements to apply only after default, and after a means inquiry has been held. We shall keep the arrangements under careful review to see whether the point at which deductions are made should be brought forward.
      I commend amendment No. 12, which honours the undertaking that I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to table an amendment to clause 21 on Report.
      Mr. Sheerman: We are grateful for the few concessions that we get from the Minister. I made a note to thank the Government profusely for amendment No. 12. Following the eloquent speech in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister promised to reconsider clause 21. The amendment is a good concession, and in that spirit I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 96.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 16, line 14 at end insert—
      `(aa) provision allowing or requiring adjudication as regards an application, and provision as to appeals and reviews;'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 23

      REDUCED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES UNDER THEFT ACT 1968
      Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 17, line 48 at end insert—
      '(3) In section 10(2) of the Badgers Act (enforcement. penalties etc.), for the words preceding the proviso there shall be substituted the following—
      "(2) Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction—

      (a) in the case of an offence under section 1 or 2, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both;

      (b) in the case of an offence under section 3 or 4, to a fine not exceeding that level; and

      (c) in the case of an offence under section 5, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on that scale;"

      and in the proviso for the words "paragraph (b)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (a) or (b)".'.
      It gives me pleasure to move the amendment, which fulfils an undertaking given to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), which was supported by all members of the Committee. It enables courts to impose a maximum custodial sentence of six months' imprisonment on anyone convicted under sections 1 and 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 of taking, injuring or killing a badger and of certain other offences of cruelty.
      Hon. Members agree that this is the right way to proceed on this serious matter, to which I referred last Friday in a debate on badger setts.
      Mr. Archer: The Minister's words will bring much pleasure to all hon. Members and to the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the animal lobby. I am sure that they will greatly augment the pleasure of many badgers. I am most grateful.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the amendment. I hope that it presages the passing of the Badgers Bill, which will give greater protection to badgers and which will soon be considered in Committee.
      Mr. Sheerman: We warmly congratulate the Government on introducing the amendment, for which we did not have to push too hard in Committee.
      I wonder what on earth the animal lobby, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), looks like at this time of the morning. There is all-party consensus in favour of badgers; I am glad that they are not running a candidate at the next election.
      Mr. Archer: If my hon. Friend does not believe that there is such an entity as an animal lobby, he has never met my dog.
      Mr. Sheerman: I should not like my right hon. and learned Friend's dog to meet my dog.
      We are against the principle of introducing more penal provisions, but the amendment will provide an important deterrent. We hope that it will not be used, but it will be useful.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      INTERPRETATION OF PART I
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 18, line 29, leave out '(except sections 30, 31 and 33 to 36)'.
      No. 15, in page 18, line 32, at end insert 'other than—

      (a) an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which would not be an offence but for section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967;

      (b) an offence under section 30, 31 or 33 to 36 of the said Act of 1956; and

      (c) an offence under section 4 or 5 of the said Act of 1967'.

      No. 16, in page 18, line 36, leave out 'serious' and insert 'physical'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      Bill to be further considered this day.

  Green Belt (Glasgow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  12.49 am
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—again here for an Adjournment debate. I am sorry to have kept him up so late, but I am sure that he will treat this matter with his normal courtesy.
  I wish to raise some issues involving the green belt in the north-western corner of the conurbation around Glasgow. I believe that all hon. Members think of the green belt as one of the great successful planning innovations. Some of us have been to other countries and seen the consequences of ribbon development and urban sprawl. Green belts are popular with all our constituents. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that both left and right are aware of the green belt's importance to our constituents. Open land seems to give great comfort to people and they forcefully resist any incursion on it.
  I wish to raise two issues in Greater Glasgow and ask for the Government's response. In the Clydebank part of my constituency, we recently received an application for outline planning permission for a huge and controversial project led by Kilpatrick Estates. If I tell the Under-Secretary of State that it is said to involve £250 million and 2,000 jobs, he can imagine the scale of the proposed development. There are proposals for two large hotels, one of which will be a first-class hotel; one dry ski slope, billed as the finest in Europe; a corporate trading centre; an equestrian centre; a rare breeds centre—I hasten to assure the Under-Secretary of State that by "rare breeds" the developers do not mean Scottish Conservatives or aristocrats and that he is likely to be able to walk around safely—and three golf courses. It adds up to 4,000 acres—half the area of the Clydebank district. It is a huge project and an application of great significance.
  What does Kilpatrick Estates consist of? We know of four people connected with it: one person who was billed as an "entrepreneurial adviser" has had three convictions and served prison sentences for offences including fraud; the chairman designate is a bankrupt; another leading agent served a gaol sentence arising out of a fraud case; and the company secretary is a struck-off solicitor. That hardly fills one with confidence.
  Who are the backers? They were said to be a Saudi prince and the Sultan of Brunei, both of whom are backing away from the project and want to clear their names. A prestigious French company of international financiers, GM F, is denying all knowledge of the project. Everything that Kilpatrick Estates has claimed seems to be untrue. One doubts its claim that the proposed first-class hotel, with 250 beds, would create 650 jobs. With such a hotel, one would normally be thinking of one job per bed. It is difficult to understand from where 2,000 jobs would come overall.
  The company's claims that consultations have taken place turn out not to be true. For example, it claims to have consulted the Countryside Commission, but I have received a letter from the commission stating that its

  409
  knowledge of the project is based only on reports which have appeared in newspapers, to which tribute should be paid.
  Tribute must also be paid to local people. An organisation called Clydebelt is extremely concerned about the project and wanted to resist it from the beginning. It was because of the organisation's concern that the newspapers stepped in and there was some first-class journalism, especially in the Sunday Mail, the Clydebank Post, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. As a result, the company has been exposed. It is now known that there are some fairly dubious people behind it.
  Unfortunately, casualties have been left behind. For example, on the basis of promises made by the company to a local farmer that it would buy his farm, he bought another farm. Perhaps that was foolish. Having received no money from the company, he is unable to follow through with the transaction. Major Glasgow firms of architects, consultants, lawyers and public relations advisers have received no money from the company. There is no evidence that anyone who has carried out work for the company, or been promised money by it, has been paid. If that is untrue, I shall withdraw with great pleasure. As I have said, however, there is no sign that anyone has received money from the company, and there are debts amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  It seems that a company with a strange background can approach a district council—in the instance to which I have referred, it seems that the company was without resources—with a view to obtaining planning permission. But for the journalism which ensued, the company might have been successful. When applications are made involving extremely large projects, is there not a case for giving district councils the power to satisfy themselves as to the bona fides of the applicant company? I would genuinely welcome the Minister's guidance on that.
  I know that conditions can be laid down after planning permission has been granted, but in the case to which I have referred there were applications involving £250 million and half the land area of Clydebank. Is it adequate to treat each application equally? If someone applies for permission to erect a porch, for example, the council will not ask if the applicant can afford to carry out the project. But if half the land area of a district council is involved in a project, there is a strong case for the district council to have investigative or interrogatory powers to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant company.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) wished to be present to associate himself with my remarks but is unfortunately unable to be in his place this evening.
  The remarkable recovery of Glasgow and other urban areas in recent years has been in large part due to regional structure plans. These plans, often with the active co-operation of the Government, have stopped development on the outskirts of conurbations and other urban areas. They have effectively brought back into use what are described in jargon as brown-field sites, which may have been polluted or on which there are derelict buildings. In any event, the sites are not available instantly for development.
  At the Clydebank end of my constituency, the Admiralty left behind a considerable number of oil tanks which had been there for many years and for which it no longer had any use. The pollution was such that it rendered the land useless for ordinary commercial
  410
  development. I am extremely grateful that an organisation such as the Scottish Development Agency is available to improve that land and to bring it into use, in this case for housing.
  The SDA has made a huge contribution to preparing land so that it is attractive for other developments, but it now seems that restrictions on the budget of the SDA—soon to be Scottish Enterprise—are causing considerable problems, which Strathclyde regional council has already noted. At a regional planning committee last week, the regional council said that there were now considerable problems because the SDA was no longer bringing forward brown-field sites for development to the same extent as previously. The council is therefore having to drop from its planning proposals some brown-field sites that it is not reasonable to expect the SDA to develop, so they will not become available for housing. The consequence is not only to hold back the redevelopment of Glasgow and other older urban areas, but to transfer pressure to green-belt areas on the outskirts of cities.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden would like to be associated with my next remark. Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin are now under considerable pressure from developers who want green-belt land to be freed. In Milngavie, Stakis Developments is proposing 170 houses on 390 acres of green-belt land. That proposal has attracted 430 objections from local people who see a precedent being set for future developments and further housing. They recognise that further traffic will be generated and envisage the loss of quiet parkland with its associated flora and wildlife.
  I am seeking from the Minister the assurance that Government policy will take account of the pressures that are occurring. If the Government do not use their influence and money to free brown-field sites in constituencies such as mine, areas such as Milngavie, which have a special character as a result of being small, compact and extremely pleasant to live in, will lose that character to the considerable resentment of the people who live there, some of whom—believe it or not, Minister—actually vote for your party——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
  Mr. Worthington: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  At the moment, there is considerable pressure on areas such as Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin, but at the same time—this is extremely sad—the pressure tends to be for new housing for the more prosperous groups when what is desperately needed in areas such as Bearsden and Milngavie is the continued existence of lower-value housing which is within the income of local people. Since the Government's introduction of the right to buy council houses, the small council housing stock has shrunk even further, with the result that local people who are not on high incomes are virtually forced to leave the area in which they would wish to live due to the loss of council housing. The local district councils tend not to be able to build houses to rent or lower-value houses to buy.
  I ask the Minister for some assurances. First, will he take a look at the power of councils confronted with gigantic planning applications from people of dubious credentials? Local councils are not adequately protected at

  411
  present. Will he also examine the SDA's environmental budget? The consequences of the cuts in the budget are considerable, particularly with the forthcoming transfer to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. It is not clear whether the local enterprise companies or Scottish Enterprise will be responsible for considerable environmental improvements. I fear that the pressure on the green belt will mount, while Scottish Enterprise is denied the funds to bring older brown-field areas back into use.
  1.5 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank green belt areas. I am aware that any proposals to develop within the designated green belt areas can give rise to concern, but I hope that I shall be able to allay some of the hon. Gentleman's fears.
  Green belt boundaries are not fixed by the Secretary of State. Any alteration of green belt boundaries is primarily a matter for the district council, as planning authority, which is guided, in areas such as Strathclyde, where both the region and the district have planning responsibilities, by the regional council. The regional council may suggest reductions in the area of the green belt through alterations to its structure plan, perhaps to provide increased housing land and to accommodate new business or industrial development, or it may propose extensions to provide additional protection. But it is for district councils alone formally to define the boundaries of the green belt in local plans. The boundaries of the Strathclyde green belt which cover the districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank are therefore set out in the adopted local plans for the area and may be revised only by the district councils through the statutory alterations procedure. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervene in the preparation or alteration of a local plan.
  The structure plan for Strathclyde region is normally updated every two years and anxiety is regularly expressed that the region's proposed policies are likely to lead to significant inroads being made into the green belt, particularly to accommodate new housing developments. The hon. Gentleman will recall that both he and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) raised this very point with me in an Adjournment debate on 12 April 1988. As I said on that occasion, I am unable to offer a definitive interpretation of the policies that form part of the current approved structure plan.
  The reasoning behind any modifications to the policies which my right hon. Friend has made to the region's structure plan are set out in full in the decision letters approving the alterations. The precise import of the region's policies could be the subject of debate in the future, particularly when individual planning applications are being considered, and it is possible that the issues will eventually have to be determined by the courts. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to try to explain how the Government consider the policies should be interpreted. They should be interpreted by the district councils in
  412
  preparing alterations to their local plans and in considering any applications for planning permission which they might receive.
  The previous alteration to the Strathclyde structure plan to come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the 1988 update—was approved in December 1989. As with all Strathclyde updates, one of the major issues was the identification of districts where action needed to be taken to increase the effective supply of housing land. As with the previous alteration, in the 1986 update, Bearsden and Milngavie was not identified as one of those districts. Nor was Clydebank. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that further land for housing will not have to be found in the years ahead; this is a matter which the district councils concerned will need to discuss with housebuilders when preparing alterations to their local plans. It does, however, show that in a regional context neither Bearsden and Milngavie nor Clydebank are districts where a particular shortage has been perceived.
  I understand that Strathclyde regional council is in the final stages of preparing its latest structure plan alteration—the 1990 update—for submission to the Secretary of State. It will, of course, be appreciated that I cannot discuss in detail any of the council's proposals, as they are not yet formally before the Secretary of State for consideration, but, as I understand it, the council has indicated in the consultative draft of the structure plan that certain parts of the green belt would be very sensitive to any development proposals. The green-belt wedges, or fingers, which penetrate into the built-up area of the conurbation—such as the land between Clydebank, Glasgow and Bearsden—are specifically identified as falling into that category. I also understand that the council's preliminary conclusions are that, as in previous years, there are no projected local housing shortfalls in either Bearsden, Milngavie or Clydebank districts. I should, however, again stress that this is not a matter on which I can speak with any authority at present.
  More generally, the need for additional sites for housing does not necessarily entail the release of green-belt land. Many districts have sites allocated for housing which builders have reservations about developing. In some instances the problem may lie in an unwillingness on the owner's part to sell the land; in others there may be difficulties with ground conditions, site servicing, or infrastructure. We have always maintained that a joint examination of those sites by the builders and the district councils concerned could resolve many of the perceived problems and could lead to their acceptance as effective contributions to the housing land supply. In addition, there is considerable scope in many areas for development on brown-field sites in built-up areas. For all those reasons many of the additional sites which are required can, we believe, be found without the need for incursions into the green belt.
  On more specific proposals within the Strathclyde green belt, I am aware that a development proposal has been put forward by Kilpatrick Estates Ltd. for the use of a large part of Kilpatrick hills, which straddles both Clydebank and Dumbarton districts. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain aspects of that proposal.
  The company has, I understand, proposed that a large part of the Kilpatrick hills be developed to provide two hotels; golf courses and driving ranges; an equestrian centre with associated pony-trekking facilities; a dry ski

  413
  slope; and hill walking trails. An outline planning application was submitted to both Clydebank and Dumbarton district councils in November 1990.
  I understand that 90 per cent. of the total 4,000-acre development area lies within Clydebank district and that this sector includes all the major construction proposals. With the agreement of Dumbarton district council, Clydebank disrict council has therefore taken the lead in dealing with the application. The council has told the developer that the application will not be considered until an environmental assessment of the proposals' impact on the area has been undertaken. I understand that the director of planning for Clydebank district council does not expect to be in a position to report to the council's planning committee before April at the earliest.
  It is possible that the proposed development would be out of accord with both the structure and local plan policies. The Strathclyde structure plan key diagram shows that the southern part of the application site might form part of the Strathclyde green belt. Current approved structure plan policies presume against development within the green belt and any proposals are required to be justified against economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact criteria. The northern part of the site would appear to fall within an area defined as countryside around towns, which is governed by similar policies. The site as a whole forms part of the Loch Lomond and Kilpartrick hills regional scenic areas. Here structure plan policies presume against prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. The site is also covered by green belt and environmental protection zone policies in the Clydebank district countryside local plan.
  As the hon. Gentleman will have noted, there would be obvious implications for structure plan policies if this development were to proceed and it is likely that Strathclyde regional council will take a close interest in the application. As the regional planning authority for the area, it has the right to call in the application for its own determination, and it is possible that it will take that action if Clydebank district states that it is minded to grant planning permission. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that at this stage there is no sign of what the district council's eventual decision will be, but it is clear that the benefits that the development might bring to the district will have to be weighed carefully against any adverse impact that it might have on the environment.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two ways in which my right hon. Friend can become involved in planning applications such as this. Firstly, should the district council be minded to grant planning permission and should it consider that the development makes a significant departure from the approved structure plan, it will be required to refer the application to my right hon. Friend for consideration. At the same time, it must also refer the application to the regional council for its consideration. I cannot, of course, speculate at this stage as to whether either my right hon. Friend or Strathclyde regional council would thereafter call in the application for determination, but the opportunity would be there for those powers to be used.
  Secondly, my right hon. Friend could become involved, should either Clydebank district council or Strathclyde regional council refuse to grant planning permission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an applicant for planning permission has a statutory right of appeal to my right hon.
  414
  Friend against such a decision. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of the possibility of either referral of the application, or an appeal against refusal, I cannot comment in any way on the merits of the proposal or the applicants, their employees or their backers. I am, however, aware of the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the matter and his recent request that my right hon. Friend investigate the company behind the proposed development. I believe that any such investigation would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider, but I shall look into this matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman shortly about the procedures for any such investigation.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the funding of the Scottish Development Agency, in particular the provision of funds which would enable it to carry out environmental improvements to brown-field sites. It is important to recognise that the economic development budget for Scottish Enterprise, which includes provision for environmental improvement works, has in fact increased. The budget set for environmental works reflects Scottish Enterprise's views on relative needs and priorities. It should also be borne in mind that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will, in future, carry out environmental works in its area which were previously undertaken by the Scottish Development Agency.
  Mr. Worthington: It seems that, in recent years, the SDA's priorities on environmental work have changed and it is giving preference to work connected with job creation. In some ways, that makes sense. It will put money allocated to the environment into work leading directly to jobs. I can understand that focus, but other money must be made available because of the costs incurred when environmental work is not done to bring sites into housing operation. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those involved. Provision for environmental work has increased, which is important.
  I shall take the opportunity to comment on our policy towards green belts. Since 1987 we have made it quite clear that we remain firmly committed to green belts and will continue to defend them against unsuitable development. It is particularly important to reaffirm that commitment at a time when Scottish green belts are coming under greater pressure for development than ever before.
  The hallmarks of the Government's policy on green belts are, first, our strong commitment to maintaining the existence of effective green belts, and, secondly, our commitment to maintaining two policies that we have applied to green belts, which have been in existence for about 30 years. Although the policy has been restated and refined in that time, the original purposes have not changed. I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, not just in relation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout Scotland.
  That pressure on the green belts is undoubtedly due to the growth in economic activity that the country as a whole has enjoyed in recent years. But while that growth is to be welcomed and provides people with the spending power to consider a wider choice of options for where they live and work, we must also ensure that any new development is channelled into the appropriate areas. We

  415
  therefore have to ensure that we integrate positive policies for providing jobs and houses in areas outwith green belts with positive policies for maintaining the integrity of the green belts, so that the green belt continues to fulfil the objectives for which it was created.
  416
  The Scottish Development——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received concerning Mr. Ewen Balfour; and if he will make a statement on the public accountability of the Royal Opera house, Covent Garden in respect of matters for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Renton
  I have received one letter about Mr. Balfour from a member of the public as well as a copy of my hon. Friend's letter to Lord Sainsbury, chairman of the Royal Opera house. The Royal Opera house is a revenue client of the Arts Council and is therefore directly accountable to the Arts Council on matters relating to its artistic and financial performance. The council is, in turn, accountable to me for the efficient administration of its grant in aid. Grant allocations to individuals clients is a matter for the Arts Council.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes and National Insurance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent forecast for the proportion of non-oil gross domestic product that taxes and national insurance contributions will represent in 1990–91.

  Mr. Maples
  The autumn statement forecast was 37¼ per cent.

  Election Expenses, Wrexham
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of Wednesday 13 February,Official Report, column 479, if he will detail the expenses of the Wrexham parliamentary constituency at the 1987 general election met from the Consolidated Fund under each of the subheads of the Returning Officer's Expenses Regulations 1987, SI 1987, No. 899.

  Mr. Maples
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Al-III

  ARO's Fee

  1,073·16

  B1

  Presiding Officers

  4,225·00

  B2

  Poll Clerks

  5,329·92

  B3

  Preparation of Poll Cards

  603·66

  B4

  Clerical Payments

  3,050·43

  B5

  Travel Expenses (ARO/DRO)

  87·45

  B6

  Travel Expenses (Poll clerks and Presiding Officers)

  623·45

  B7

  Travel Expenses (Other staff)

  340·20

  B8

  Printing of ballot papers

  902·52

  B9

  Printing of poll cards

  401·62

  B10

  Printing of notices

  488·21

  B11

  Renting of buildings

  2,537·89

  138

  £

  B12

  Adaptation of buildings

  3,635·00

  B13

  Ballot boxes

  —

  B14

  Conveyance of ballot boxes

  35·00

  B15

  Stamping Instruments

  19·50

  B16

  Copies of register

  25·60

  B17

  Stationary, postage etc

  1,014·67

  Total

  24,393·28

  European Currency Unit
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has issued a public loan based on the European currency unit; how much has been raised; and what is the interest rate.

  Mr. Maples
  The issue of a bond denominated in ecu shows the importance the Government attach to the strengthening of London's leading position in this growing market and demonstrates our commitment to the development of the ecu. The offer is for 2·5 billion ecu. The bonds carry a coupon of 9⅛ per cent. priced at par.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he has had with the institutions of the EC about his decision to raise a loan in European currency units.

  Mr. Maples
  None.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purposes his new European currency unit loan will be used.

  Mr. Maples
  The United Kingdom Government's 2½ billion ecu issue shows the importance we attach to strengthening London's leading position in this growing market and demonstrates our commitment to the development of the ecu. The proceeds will be added to our gold and foreign currency reserves.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the rates of capital gains tax in EC and G7 countries and the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest available information on EC and G7 countries is given in the table, which is supplemented by notes. No information is available on capital gains tax in the Soviet Union.

  Countries have widely differing procedures for calculating the taxable proportion of a gain, and in many cases rates of tax depend on the type of asset on which the gain is made and the period for which the asset has been held. In most EC and G7 countries the gains of individuals and companies are added to income and taxed at the ordinary income or corporation tax rate as appropriate, but various reliefs and exemptions may apply.

  The majority of these countries have no equivalent to indexation which substantially reduces the effective rate of tax in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Some countries have no equivalent of the £5,000 annual exemption in the United Kingdom. Where there is such an exemption, it is generally very much lower than in the United Kingdom.
  139

  Nominal rates of tax on gains of

  Country

  individuals

  Companies

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  EC

  Belgium

  0–331

  412

  Denmark

  exempt or 22–683

  50

  France

  16 or 5–56·84

  345

  Germany

  19–53

  50

  Greece

  exempt or 10–256

  46

  Ireland

  30–507

  30–507

  Italy

  10–508 plus 16·2 local tax

  36 plus9 16·2 local tax

  Luxembourg

  10–5610

  34 plus local tax (7·2–12)

  Netherlands

  35·75–6011

  35

  Portugal

  exempt or 1012

  36·5

  Spain

  25–56

  35

  United Kingdom

  25 or 4013

  25 or 3513

  Other G7

  Canada

  17–2914 plus provincial tax

  38 plus14 provincial tax

  Japan

  10–50 plus local taxes 5–1515

  37·5 plus local taxes 17–20

  USA

  15 or 2816 plus state tax

  15–34 plus16 state tax

  1 Gains are generally exempt, but some speculative gains are taxed at up to 33 per cent.

  2 Some gains are exempt and long-term gains are taxed at 20·5 per cent.

  3 A special flat rate of 50 per cent, applies to investment gains if the seller has a "substantial interest" in the company.

  4 The 16 per cent, rate applies to some gains including those on the sale of certain unquoted shares and shares which constitute a substantial interest in a company.

  5 Some long-term corporation gains are taxed at lower rates of 19 or 25 per cent.

  6 Gains on moveable assets, including shares, are not taxed. Gains on immovable assets are subject to capital gains tax at varying rates depending on period for which asset was held.

  7 Rates depend on period for which asset was held.

  8 Gains only taxed if deemed to be derived from business assets sold within five years of date of acquisition.

  9 Corporate gains not taxed if allocated to a special reserve or are reinvested within two years.

  10 Gains on sale of immovable property held between two and 10 years are taxed at half the average rate on the individual's total income.

  11 Gains on sale or private assets are exempt.

  12 Only 50 per cent, of the gain on some types of asset is subject to tax.

  13 The charge is confined to post-March 1982 indexed gains. Individuals are exempt from tax on gains not exceeding £5,000.

  14 Three quarters of post-1971 gains are included in income and taxed at appropriate rates. Provincial rates vary. Rates in Ontario, the most populous province, are 53 per cent, of federal income tax for individuals and 10 to 15·5 per cent, of gains for corporations. For individuals there is a cumulative exemption on gains up to a lifetime limit of $100,000.

  15 Gains by individuals taxable only if deemed to be business transactions.

  16 Most states impose a state tax on both individuals and companies. In California, the most populous state, the top rate of 9·3 per cent, produces effective maximum rates of approximately 34 per cent, for individuals and 40 per cent, for companies.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the relocation of Government Departments from London to the regions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 January 1991, at columns 217–18, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cumulative total of annual manufacturing trade balance of payments deficits between(a) 1975 to 1979 and (b) 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest information is available in table A9 of the monthly review of external trade statistics and its annual supplement, available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database, which may also be accessed through the Library.

  Overseas Trade Statistics
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take to ensure that overseas trade statistics will be published and available following the agreement of the House of Commons (Services) Committee that a return of statistics relating to overseas trade need no longer be laid before the House.

  Mr. Maples
  Following consultation with the House authorities and with the approval of the House of Commons (Services) Committee, it has been agreed to cease the requirement for overseas trade statistics (OTS) to be laid before the House.

  The OTS will continue to be published by HMSO for the Central Statistical Office as a monthly and annual business monitor, (MM20 and MA20) "Overseas Trade Statistics", copies of which are and will continue to be available in the statistical section of the Library (and by green demand forms from the Vote Office). Summary information held on the CSO's database in the form of time-series can also be obtained by the Library.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by third world countries.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: The total amount of debt owed to the United Kingdom Government by developing countries is currently about £7·3 billion.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual value to the United Kingdom of debt interest payments from the third world.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: The United Kingdom Government received about £150 million in interest on outstanding debt from developing countries in 1989–90.

  Inland Revenue Office, Glenrothes
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline(a) the number of jobs to be created by the opening of a new Inland Revenue office at Saltire house in Glenrothes, (b) how many jobs will be recruited locally and (c) what steps are being taken to advertise and recruit local staff.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: (a) It is not possible at present to specify the exact number of new jobs that will eventually arise. The office will have 45 staff by April this year and will build up, mainly from

  141
  January 1992, towards full staffing in the second quarter of 1992. On current planning assumptions it is expected that there will be up to some 250 part-time and full-time jobs at that time.

  (b) Most of the staff that are setting up the office have been transferred from nearby Inland Revenue offices. However, about 20 per cent. of those in post by April this year are expected to be new recruits from the local area, and it is planned that most of the additional staff required subsequently will be obtained as far as possible by local recruitment.

  (c) The recruitment will be carried out in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Civil Service Commission for all Government Departments. The Inland Revenue will notify the local careers office and job centre about the posts and will consider advertising in the local press as necessary.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to open a new Inland Revenue office at Saltire house in Glenrothes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: The Inland Revenue opened a new office at Saltire house in Glenrothes on 7 January 1991. The office is one of a number of new Inland Revenue offices opening throughout the United Kingdom in 1991 and early 1992. They will handle claims for repayments of tax, most of which will arise from the change in the taxation of interest from banks, building societies and other deposit-takers that comes into effect on 6 April 1991.

  £ million

  Tax on North sea production

  Hydrocarbon oil duties

  VAT on petroleum products (quarterly)

  August 1989

  318

  747

  —

  September 1989

  205

  739

  290

  October 1989

  357

  708

  —

  November 1989

  68

  765

  —

  December 1989

  252

  735

  290

  January 1990

  193

  698

  —

  February 1990

  85

  710

  —

  March 1990

  679

  708

  290

  April 1990

  89

  851

  —

  May 1990

  87

  802

  —

  June 1990

  -15

  839

  320

  July 1990

  88

  813

  —

  August 1990

  106

  847

  —

  September1990

  489

  817

  340

  October 1990

  517

  776

  —

  November 1990

  313

  804

  —

  December 1990

  -145

  802

  —

  Taxes on North sea production include royalties, petroleum revenue tax and North sea corporation tax before ACT set-off. Receipts of hydrocarbon oils duties are published by the Central Statistical Office in "Financial Statistics". The figures for VAT on petroleum products are estimates, based on quarterly consumers' expenditure data.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in the Official Report the reasons for the regional per capita distribution of departmental expenditure shown in annex 2 of the first report of Session

  Investment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figures for investment in industry by sector in cash and real terms for each year from 1979 until the most recent period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: The latest estimates of the volume of investment by manufacturing industry were published in the CSO press notice "Capital Expenditure: Provisional Estimates for Q4 1990" on 14 February, available in the House of Commons Library. The most up-to-date estimates for other industries may be obtained from the CSO databank, a collection of macro-economic time series in computer-readable form to which the Library has direct access.

  Business investment reached an all-time high in 1989–53 per cent. higher than its 1979 level.

  Oil Tax
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax on North sea oil production, including royalties, paid by oil companies monthly from August 1989 to the present time; and if he will include any other revenues from petroleum products in that total.

  Mr. Maples
  The table shows tax receipts on North sea production and other taxes on petroleum products.

  1990–91 from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the 1990 autumn statement—House of Commons Paper No. 41.

  Mr. Mellor
  Responsibility for allocation of departmental expenditure between regions lies with individual Departments. Questions about variations in expenditure between regions are matters for the responsible Department.

  Savings
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the _Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an analysis of United Kingdom savings totals by type of investment or investment product for the most recent three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives, for the period 1987–1989, the latest estimates of amounts invested—inflows net of realisations—by the United Kingdom personal sector in a range of financial instruments which are used to a considerable degree, if not exclusively, as repositories of savings. It is not possible to quantify total savings with precision because of the dual-purpose nature of many of these instruments; equally, other forms of asset, such as property, may at times be regarded by their owners as having a "savings" aspect as well as their primary function.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Life assurance and pensions

  21,700

  22,396

  30,482

  National Savings

  2,439

  1,409

  -1,520

  Building society deposits

  13,635

  20,165

  17,461

  Sterling time deposits with United Kingdom banks

  771

  8,092

  10,968

  Unit trusts units

  3,239

  -248

  -719

  British government securities

  1,826

  -3,633

  -3,088

  United Kingdom company securities

  -9,850

  -12,233

  -18,398

  Statistical series measuring the personal sector's net acquisition of these and other financial assets are published in the CSO's "Financial Statistics" and can also be found on the CSO database which is accessible through the Library.

  Composite Rate Taxation
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of(a) the loss of revenue and (b) the increase in administration costs arising from the abolition of the composite rate of tax in the 1990 budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In principle composite rate tax would produce the same yield as the system which is replacing it, but there are behavioural and timing effects which affect receipts. An estimate of the effect on receipts was given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91. An updated estimate will be published in this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  The estimated increases in the Inland Revenue's administration costs in the current year and the next three years are approximately £55 million in 1990–91, £165 million in 1991–92, £110 million in 1992–93 and £90 million in 1993–94.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the pound sterling reaches its floor within the ERM, there is any limit to the extent of funds which would be made available to support it from the central banks.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him on 22 October 1990, Official Report, columns 9–10.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Advisory Body for the Research Councils
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the purpose of the ABRC's flexibility margins.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  When my right hon. and learned Friend announced the allocation of the science budget for 1991–92, and of the planning figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 on 24 January,Official Report columns 286–87, he indicated that £39 million and £60 million remained unallocated in the latter two years and that he was expecting further advice on the distribution of those sums from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in the spring. By that time the board will have received and considered the programme plans for the period 1992–93 to 1994–95 from each of the funded bodies.

  CERN
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the reasons for the unpredicted rise in the British subscription to CERN.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The CERN budget for the forthcoming year is finalised each December by the CERN council, on which the United Kingdom is represented. Each member state's contribution is determined on an agreed formula based on relative GNP. The likely level of the United Kingdom subscription is therefore known in advance of the preparation of Supply estimates each year. The exact amount due is finalised during the year in question in the light of current United Kingdom/Swiss exchange rates and other relevant factors.

  As my reply to my hon. Friend on 4 February 1991, Official Report, columns 8–9, showed, the United Kingdom's subscription to CERN has in fact been reduced since 1987–88.

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost of educating a secondary school pupil in(a) Surrey, (b) Kingston and (c) Sutton; what is the inter-authority recoupment payment between those authorities in respect of secondary pupils; and what provision is made to ensure that a school enjoys the full benefit of inter-authority recoupment payments which are made in respect of out-county pupils.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1988–89, the latest year for which data are available, the school-based spending per secondary school pupil was £1,635 in Surrey, £1,905 in Kingston-upon-Thames and £1,630 in Sutton. Inter-authority recoupment rates are determined by local authorities and information on actual payments between individual authorities is not collected centrally. However, the inter-authority recoupment rates recommended by local authority associations for secondary school pupils in 1988–89 were £1,982 per pupil aged under 16 and £3,064 per pupil aged over 16 educated in the outer London area, which includes Kingston-upon-Thames and Sutton; and £1,889 per pupil under 16 and £2,920 per pupil over 16 educated in the London fringe area, which includes Surrey. These payments are to cover both school-based and central local education authority spending. Under
  145
  authorities' schemes for the local management of schools, a school receives the same funding for all pupils of the same age—with a different weighting for different subjects in sixth forms under some authorities' schemes—whether such pupils are the financial responsibility of the providing or a different authority.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends to hold back grant from the higher education funding councils next year in respect of pay settlements for lecturers in higher education.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Yes. My Department has written to the two higher education funding councils to convey my decision to hold back a proportion of grant for 1991–92 to be released in the event of pay settlements satisfying specified conditions. The sums withheld are £22 million in the case of the Universities Funding Council and £134 million for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Copies of the letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nursing Homes
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many beds are available in public nursing homes for the elderly; and what was the equivalent number five years ago.

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The health and social services boards have never been involved in the provision of nursing homes in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) private nursing homes and (b) private residential homes there are in each of the health board areas in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) At 31 December 1990, the latest date for which information is held centrally, the number of registered nursing homes in Northern Ireland was as follows:

  Board

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Eastern

  62

  4

  Northern

  50

  2

  Southern

  24

  5

  Western

  17

  —

  (b) At 31 March 1990, the latest date for which information is held centrally, the number of registered homes for persons in need was as follows:

  Board

  Private homes

  Voluntary homes

  Eastern

  66

  30

  Northern

  37

  9

  Southern

  21

  3

  Western

  13

  15

  1The figures supplied in respect of the Western Board relate to 31 March 1989 as the information relating to 31 March 1990 is not yet available.

WALES

  Science Parks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many science parks there are in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are currently seven science parks in Wales, Aberystwyth science park, Cardiff business technology centre, Menai technology enterprise centre—MENTEC—Newtech science park, University College of Swansea innovation centre, Wrexham technology park and the Mid Glamorgan science park at Bridgend.

  In addition, there are plans for the Imperial College science park at Duffryn, Gwent.

  Company Losses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies, and the numbers involved, which have ceased trading, gone into receivership and announced redundancies in each of the counties of Wales since 1 June 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for company failures are maintained and published by the Department of Trade and Industry on an England and Wales basis. Separate official figures for Wales are not available. Provisional figures provided by the Department of Employment on notified redundancies in Wales during the period June to December 1990 are as follows:

  Numbers

  South Glamorgan

  500

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,520

  West Glamorgan

  560

  Gwent

  911

  Dyfed

  137

  Clwyd

  520

  Gwynedd

  67

  Powys

  46

  Wales

  4,261

  Over the same period, Welsh Development International recorded 83 new inward investment projects for Wales promising capital investment of £327 million and more than 5,000 new jobs.

  Lithotripsy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to see the installation of lithotripters in north and south Wales for the use of NHS patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  An all-Wales project group is presently considering the need for and specification of lithotripter facilities for Wales and appraising location options. The group is expected to report shortly.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of manufacturing jobs lost in Wales since 1 June 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive information regarding jobs lost in the manufacturing industry in Wales is not
  147
  available. There were 249,000 full-time and part-time employees in employment in the manufacturing sector in Wales—SIC 80 divisions 2–4—in June 1990, and 253,000 in September 1990, the latest month for which estimates are available.

  Industrial and Regional Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the Assembly of Welsh Counties to discuss industrial and regional development.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No such meeting has been arranged.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the Committee of Welsh District Councils to discuss industrial and regional development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I intend to meet the Council for Welsh Districts in due course to discuss its strategy document "Wales: A Land of Opportunity".

  Farming
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representation he has received from(a) the National Farmers Union in Wales and (b) Young Farmers Club representatives in Wales concerning the development of a co-ordinated marketing and processing structure for the livestock sector in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Invited comments have been received from the National Farmers Union in Wales on the United Kingdom's draft sectoral plans prepared in connection with EC regulation 866/90 on the marketing and processing of agricultural produce. No recent representations have been received from Young Farmers Club representatives in Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to make representations to the European Commission requesting the use of European structural funds to provide a co-ordinated marketing and processing structure for the livestock sector in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. EC regulation 866/90, which provides grants for the marketing and processing of agricultural produce, is already in place.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the average class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in Wales in each year from 1976–77 to 1990–91.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The details of average class size are given in the following table. The primary school information relates to the average size of registered classes. In the case of secondary schools, the information is based on registered classes in years 1 to 5 for the period 1976–77 to 1988–89. Data on classes, as taught, is available only from 1986–87 onwards.

  Information for 1990–91 is not available.

  Average size of registered classes1

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1976–77

  25·8

  222·6

  1977–78

  25·3

  25·7

  1978–79

  24·7

  25·2

  148

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1979–80

  24·3

  24·5

  1980–81

  23·9

  24·1

  1981–82

  24·1

  24·1

  1982–83

  23·9

  24·0

  1983–84

  23·7

  23·5

  1984–85

  24·1

  26·0

  1985–86

  24·3

  25·7

  1986–87

  24·4

  25·1

  1987–88

  24·5

  24·6

  1988–89

  24·8

  24·3

  1989–90

  24·8

  —

  1 As at September of each year.

  2 As at January 1977.

  Average size of classes as taught in secondary schools1

  Secondary schools

  1986–87

  19·4

  1987–88

  19·1

  1988–89

  19·0

  1989–90

  18·9

  1As at September of each year.

  Farm Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he offers to local authorities concerning the disposal of impounded straying stock; and what safeguards are in force to ensure the proper disposal of the carcases of slaughtered animals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authorities may exercise powers under existing legislation, or seek additional powers, to deal with straying stock including, where relevant, its disposal. The disposal of carcases is usually carried out by the rendering industry or by knackermen and similar operators, although alternatives are available. Advice on meeting health and environmental restrictions is available from the state veterinary service, ADAS, the National Rivers Authority and local authorities, and is contained in the draft code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the school dentist service consequent upon the new dental contracts.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The responsibility of district health authorities, via the community dental service, to provide school-based screening arrangements for children is not affected by the introduction of the new contract for general dental practitioners.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in rank order the percentage of under-fives in maintained nursery and primary schools in each Welsh local education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information as at January 1990 is as follows:
  149

  Percentage of under-fives in nursery schools1 2

  Local education authority

  Percentage

  Gwent

  9·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·3

  South Glamorgan

  7·2

  Clwyd

  2·8

  West Glamorgan

  2·5

  Dyfed

  2·2

  Percentage of under-fives in primary schools 1

  Local education authority

  Percentage

  West Glamorgan

  87·3

  Clwyd

  73·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  67·3

  Dyfed

  61·4

  Gwent

  60·2

  Powys

  50·6

  South Glamorgan

  48·1

  Gwynedd

  41·2

  1 Aged as at December 1989 expressed as a percentage of the three-and four-year-old population.

  2 There are no nursery schools in Gwynedd or Powys.

  Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of all support provided by the Welsh Office to SASH in Swansea.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department is providing the following support to Swansea Accommodation for the Single Homeless in 1990–91:

  £

  Under Section 73, Housing Act 1985

  71,150

  Urban Programme Funding

  33,600

  Grant under Section 28(a) of the National Health Service Act 1977

  19,000

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation took place between the Welsh Office and the advisory panel of the all-Wales strategy for mental handicap prior to the publication of his local management of schools draft circular of 21 December 1990 concerning the application of local management of schools procedures to special schools in Wales; and if he will list those items where there is a conflict between the local management of schools strategy objectives and the all-Wales strategy objectives.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There is no conflict between the local management of schools—LMS—arrangements and the all-Wales mental handicap strategy. Under LMS, local education authorities retain their statutory responsibility to ensure that proper provision is made for children who are the subject of statements of special educational need. The report of the all-Wales panel on educational provision and services in the mental handicap strategy recommended that the effects of LMS on the financing of special needs provision should be carefully monitored by the Department and local education authorities.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.
  150
  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department will invest in high-efficiency lighting where it is cost effective to do so. A start has been made in our headquarters building, and lighting surveys for other offices are planned as part of a five-year energy efficiency programme.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his four key policy objectives for the local management of schools apply to special schools; and what benefit such schools will obtain from the implementation of these objectives.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the feasibility study carried out by the management consultants, Touche Ross, on extending local, management to special schools, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he had with Mencap-in-Wales, with the Spastic Society in Wales and with the Wales Council for the Disabled, respectively, before publishing his draft circular of 21 December 1990, dealing with the application of LMS procedures to special schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The draft LMS circular was issued as a consultation document. It is open to organisations such as Mencap-in-Wales to submit their views on the proposals. The closing date for receipt of comments is 1 March 1991.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will clarify his intentions with regard to allowing special schools to apply for delegated management under the provisions of the Education Reform Act, specifying who is empowered to make such an application on behalf of a special school; and what consultation procedures have to be fulfilled by such persons before the application can be made;

  (2) whether in his proposals for the application of local management of schools provisions to special schools in Wales he intends local education authorities to make charges to the special schools in its area which have opted for local management, for centrally-organised resources such as educational psychology, pre-school assessment units, peripatetic special needs assessment teams, dyslexia units and those statutory responsibilities of the Education Act 1981 which cannot be delegated to special schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am currently seeking the views of the LEAs and other interested parties on the proposals described in the LMS draft circular. It would not be proper for me to pre-empt the outcome of this consultation process.

  Felinheli Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his written answer of 14 February to the hon. Member for Caernarfon, relating to the A487 Felinheli bypass, why supplementary orders were necessary; on what date they were published; until what date objections were accepted; how many objections were received to these supplementary orders; and what was the nature of the objections.
  151
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Supplementary orders were required to take account of recommendations by the public inquiry inspector and other changes identified later during the detailed design of the scheme. Drafts of the supplementary side roads order and the supplementary compulsory purchase order were published on the 19 October and 9 November 1990 respectively and the periods for objection expired on 30 November. There were eight objections and three representations which were mainly concerned with the effects on agricultural land; inadequacy of farm accesses; the acquisition of additional land and the dismantling of railway track.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which consulting engineers were employed to design the A487 Felinheli bypass; and whether he intends to employ anyone else in this capacity to expedite the scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Messrs Parkman consulting engineers. There are no plans to employ another consulting engineer.

  Oil Spillage, Llanwern
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instigate an inquiry into the fuel oil leak from British Steel's Llanwern plant, specifically to cover how the pipe was fractured and why such a large quantity of fuel oil was able to leak out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The National Rivers Authority is currently investigating the Llanwern leak and we have asked to be kept informed. British Steel is also conducting an internal technical inquiry.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the number and percentage of patients waiting for non-urgent operations in 1980, 1985 and 1990(a) nationally and (b) in the Doncaster health authority area;

  (2) what is the percentage of those waiting for non-urgent operations who wait longer than (a) one year, (b) six months and (c) two years (i) nationally and (ii) in the Doncaster health authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the tables. Since March 1987 information on waiting lists has not been classified according to urgency of condition. Figures for 1990 therefore relate to all patients waiting for in-patient treatment in the surgical acute specialties.

  It is the time people wait which is important. Since 1980 the number of patients waiting over a year for in-patient treatment in the surgical acute specialties has fallen by 61 per cent. in Doncaster health authority and by nearly 11 per cent. in England as a whole.

  Numbers of non-urgent cases waiting on surgical specialty lists for in-patient treatment

  Year

  England

  Doncaster

  March 1980

  580,598

  3,718

  March 1985

  614,217

  4,713

  152

  Total numbers waiting on surgical sepcialty lists for in-patient treatment

  Year

  England

  Doncaster

  March 1990

  723,447

  4,617

  Percentage waiting on surgical specialty lists for in-patient treatment by time waiting at March 1990

  England

  Doncaster

  6 months +

  45

  43

  12 months +

  24

  17

  24 months +

  9

  2

  Source: KHO6/7/7A—March 1990.

  Over the period 1979 to 1988–89, the NHS has increased inpatient treatment as follows:

  1979

  1988–89

  England

  5,400,120

  6,585,982

  Doncaster

  28,103

  41,969

  an increase of 22 per cent. nationally—49·3 per cent. in the Doncaster area.

  Day case treatment also increased as follows:

  1979

  1988–89

  England

  592,061

  1,016,327

  Doncaster

  2,909

  4,961

  an increase of 71·7 per cent. nationally—70·5 per cent. in the Doncaster area.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 351, what steps he has taken to date to ensure that the health issues arising from the EC tobacco regime were given full consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health has raised this matter with our EC partners on a number of occasions. She will do so again with the Luxembourg Minister of Health when he visits London today. Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have also raised the United Kingdom's concern about the tobacco regime with other EC Agriculture Ministers.

  The Gulf
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made for trained experts in psychotherapy to be co-ordinated for the effective treatment of service men and women and their families suffering from trauma, stress and long-term mental illness consequent upon the war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All services personnel and their families suffering from any form of stress or mental illness as a consequence of the war in the Gulf and referred to the National Health Service will have available to them the normal range of psychiatric services available in the health service. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has provided regional health authorities with a list of doctors specially able to advise on the co-ordination of effective treatment in such cases.
  153
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to increase the number of trained psychologists who specialise in therapy for the treatment of trauma, stress and long-term mental illness of service men and women and their families arising from the war in the Gulf; and what he is doing to ensure that this is done on a national basis;

  (2) what additional funding is being made available for training to be given to nursing staff to deal with problems of trauma, stress and mental illness in the cases of families and service men and women arising from war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In general, health authorities are responsible for deciding the training their staff require to carry out the services they undertake to provide.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made for non-emergency patients whose admissions have been postponed as a result of the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no need for health authorities to prepare for Gulf casualties by clearing beds or postponing non-emergency admissions until significant ground operations begin. Health authorities will be responsible for making alternative arrangements for any deferred non-emergency admissions if Gulf casualties arrive for treatment in the NHS. The extra money available to meet the full costs of treating any Gulf casualties in the, NHS would alleviate inevitable pressures on health authorities and ensure as far as possible minimum disturbance to the normal NHS workload.

  Children
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is currently made for children with severe learning difficulties, extreme challenging behaviour and autism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Much provision for such children is made within the education service, which is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Health authorities and social services departments provide a range of services including treatment, respite and long-term residential care, and support to families.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings and throughout the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department's building managers are instructed to consider installing low energy lighting when replacing existing installations. For the NHS comprehensive guidance on all aspects of lighting, including low-energy lamps, is included in volume 2 of the publication ENCODE issued to all health authorities in 1986, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Liver Transplants
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many liver transplant operations were conducted in Britain in the last 10 years; and how many such patients died within one year of the operation.
  154
  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information supplied by the United Kingdom transplant service the number of liver transplants performed in NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom since 1982 were:

  Numbers

  1982

  21

  1983

  20

  1984

  51

  1985

  88

  1986

  127

  1987

  172

  1988

  241

  1989

  295

  1990

  1359

  1 Provisional.

  Information on survival rates is not collected centrally. However a recent study at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham indicated that the one-year survival rate had risen from 20 to 30 per cent. before 1980 to a current level of over 60 per cent.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his announcement on 4 December 1990,Official Report, columns 173–76, if he will announce any other further expressions of interest by hospitals or other units which are proceeding to NHS trust status for April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have now agreed that a further six hospitals and other units, which have expressed an interest in trust status, can proceed to work up applications to become trusts on 1 April 1992. These are

  West Berkshire Health Services

  Ealing Acute Hospital

  York Health Services

  Lancaster Acute Hospital Services

  Lancaster Priority Services

  Bath and Wiltshire Community Services

  Since I last announced a total of 123 expressions of interest, eight of these hospitals and other units have decided to work to a slower time scale in their consideration of trust status. These are

  Darlington Health Services

  Kendal Hospitals

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Community Unit

  East Surrey Mental Illness and Mental Handicap

  Bexley Mental Health

  Queen Victoria Hospital East Grinstead

  Eastbourne Community Services

  Dartford and Gravesham Acute Services

  At this stage each unit is considering in detail the implications of NHS trust status, and this list will be subject to change until the formal applications are received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the increase in manufacturing output over the last decade.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1989 manufacturing output was over 22 per cent. higher than it was in 1980.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of trade in textiles and clothing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Multilateral negotiations to agree a successor regime to govern international trade in textiles after the MFA expires on 31 July 1991 are an element of the wider GATT Uruguay round discussions. The United Kingdom and EC, together with all other negotiating partners, remain committed to integrating the textiles sector into GATT on the basis of strengthening rules and disciplines.

  Trade and Industry (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit north Devon to meet the North Devon Manufacturing Association and the chambers of commerce and trade to discuss trade and industrial development.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have made no plans to visit north Devon, but hope that I or one of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to do so during the course of this year.

  GATT
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has made any new proposals with regard to the current round of GATT talks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Commission represents the Community and the member states in the GATT negotiations. Community Trade Ministers, at their last meeting, called on the Commission to take all necessary action to reach a balanced agreement covering all sectors as soon as possible. Talks are continuing with a view to bringing this about.

  Germany
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about trade relations with Germany.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have excellent trade relations with Germany. Provisional figures indicate that Germany was our top export market in 1990.

  Manufacturing Industry (North-West)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industry in the north-west.

  Mr. Leigh
  The prospects for manufacturing in the North-West, as in the rest of the country, are excellent. Inflation is set to fall sharply, leaving industry well placed to build on the improvements of the past decade and to benefit from the completion of the single market and the opening up of eastern europe.

  Trade and Industry (North-West)
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the north-west TUC, chamber of commerce and chamber of trade about the viability of trade and industry in the north-west region.
  156
  Mr. Leigh
  I have held no meetings to date with these regional bodies. The Government's policies are aimed at the long-term prosperity of trade and industry in all regions of the United Kingdom.

  Car Exports
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of cars manufactured or assembled in the United Kingdom were exported in the years 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  A total of 31 per cent. of cars manufactured or assembled in the United Kingdom in 1990 were exported, compared with 34 per cent. in 1979.

  Car Production
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the increase in United Kingdom car production in the 1980s.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am pleased to report that United Kingdom car production rose from 923,744 in 1980 to 1,299,082 in 1989.

  Recession
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the recession in industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives of the Confederation of British Industry. He met the director general most recently last week.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the east midlands regional Confederation of British Industry to discuss the recession in industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  Officials of my Department keep in touch with the east midlands regional Confederation of British Industry on a wide range of business matters.

  Cars (EC Access)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the EC about access by Japanese-owned British car firms to the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have had a number of discussions with the EC Commission and with other member states about trade in cars within the EC and between the EC and Japan. The Government have consistently taken the line, which the Commission accepts, that cars produced in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned companies must be treated as European products in every respect.

  South Africa
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the level of trade with South Africa in the last 12 months; and whether he expects any change.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In 1990 the value of United Kingdom visible exports to South Africa was £1,113 million. Visible
  157
  imports totalled £1,079 million. This represents an increase in exports of 7 per cent. over the 1989 figure. I hope to see this upward trend continue.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to revise his estimate of the trade deficit at the end of the current year.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be publishing new forecasts for the balance of payments at the time of his Budget statement.

  Credit
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions the Government have taken to ensure that lenders take reasonable precautions against sending credit offers to minors and consumers who have said they do not want to receive circulars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government are consulting interested parties on their proposals to make regulations requiring persons licensed under the Consumer Credit Act to take reasonable precautions against sending credit circulars to minors and to people who have given notice that they do not wish to receive circulars. Details of the proposals are set out in the consultative document "Proposals for New Legislation on Credit Marketing" copies of which are in the Library and in the Vote Office.

  Invisible Exports
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the United Kingdom's invisible exports for the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest information is available from the balance of payments Pink Book 1990 and the quarterly balance of payments press notice, available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office's database, which may also be accessed through the Library.

  Between the first three quarters of 1985 and 1990 invisible credits rose by 40 per cent. In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, the United Kingdom had the second largest share—14·5 per cent.—of world invisible credits, ranking after the United States of America.

  Science Parks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of science parks attached to universities and polytechnics today and in 1979.

  Mr. Leigh
  There were two science parks attached to universities in 1979. Today there are 39 linked with universities or polytechnics. In addition, a further 20 are either in construction or under consideration.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to ensure that British companies share in the restructuring of Kuwait.
  158
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry co-operated with industry in preparing a prospectus of United Kingdom capabilities which was presented by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to the Kuwait Government in Saudi Arabia, accompanied by a team of senior business men led by Department of Trade and Industry officials. My Department will continue to encourage and reinforce the efforts of United Kingdom industry.

  Securities and Investments Board Rules
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the new draft rules published by the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  While the core rules are a matter for the Securities and Investments Board, I have received a number of comments generally supporting a clear and straightforward set of rules for the regulation of investment business.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the inward investment in the United Kingdom car industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government welcome inward investment in the car industry, as in other industries.

  Greece, Portugal and Spain
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on United Kingdom trade with Greece, Portugal and Spain.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest information on United Kingdom trade with Greece, Portugal and Spain is published in Business Monitor MM20 "Overseas Trade Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House. United Kingdom exports to these countries increased by 19·5, 12·5 and 19·5 per cent. respectively from 1989 to 1990.

  Furniture (Fire-resistant Materials)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on EC proposals to reduce the current standards of fire-resistant materials used in furniture.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Commission has consulted member states about a proposal for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. We understand that the Commission will shortly publish a draft directive which will go forward as a formal proposal to the council. It remains our negotiating aim to secure a directive that will provide a level of fire safety consistent with that provided for domestic upholstered furniture in the United Kingdom by the Furniture and Furnishing (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended in 1989.

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those trust ports which have received European regional development fund grant in each of the last five years specifying the amount already given and details of future commitments already agreed.
  159
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Table 1: Amount already given (£)

  Ongoing payments for projects already committed, and initial payments made towards projects committed in, each year

  Port

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Blyth

  14,904

  74,207

  527,700

  —

  —

  Tyne

  166,617

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tees and Hartlepool

  154,696

  16,546

  —

  —

  —

  Falmouth

  —

  17,861

  39,221

  12,942

  —

  Newlyn

  —

  —

  742,000

  —

  —

  Milford Haven

  —

  —

  458,518

  240,588

  —

  Clyde

  27,804

  —

  90,000

  62,995

  436,146

  Cromarty Firth

  680,000

  440,000

  160,000

  109,082

  26,441

  Dundee

  80,178

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth

  262,967

  124,200

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness

  229,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lerwick

  1,150,462

  76,500

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  2,767,128

  749,314

  2,017,439

  425,607

  462,587

  Table 2: Future agreed commitments (£)

  Unclaimed amounts outstanding from past commitments at the start of 1991, and known future commitments already agreed

  Port

  Grant still to be taken up at 1 January 1991

  Future commitments already agreed

  £

  £

  Blyth

  —

  574,000

  Tyne

  —

  167,000

  Tees and Hartlepool

  —

  1,725,000

  Milford Haven

  10,647

  —

  Clyde

  100,308

  —

  Dundee

  205,800

  —

  Totals

  315,747

  2,466,000

  Export Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party, covering export controls on sensitive equipment and materials; and if he will indicate in each case the primary purpose of the agreement and when the United Kingdom joined.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 February 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom is a depositary power to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which was opened for signature in 1968. The treaty aims to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, and ultimately to secure complete and general, as well as nuclear disarmament. In addition, the treaty provides a framework for peaceful nuclear co-operation. We are also members of the International Atomic Energy Authority, the Zangger committee and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, all of which play an important part in the non-proliferation regime. The United Kingdom is also a founder member of the missile technology control regime, established in 1987 to control the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

  The United Kingdom is a party to the Geneva protocol (1925) which bans the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons and to the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxic weapons and on their destruction (1972). We are committed to securing a global, comprehensive and verifiable convention banning chemical weapons. Until that is achieved, we are working with
  160
  The information is as follows:

  other like-minded countries in the Australia Group to prevent proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, and their precursors.

  The United Kingdom is a member of the co-ordinating committee for multilateral export controls (COCOM) which was established in 1949. It provides an informal framework within which controls can be agreed for strategic reasons on the export of sensitive goods to the proscribed destinations, principally the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and China.

  These obligations and commitments are given effect through the maintenance of stringent export controls on sensitive equipment, materials and technology under the Export of Goods (Control) Order.

ENERGY

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all future(a) conferences, (b) seminars and (c) meetings which Ministers in his Department have been invited to attend (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the European Community and (iii) elsewhere; and if he will list the dates of these events for the next three months.

  Mr. Wakeham
  For obvious reasons, it is not normal practice to publicise information on Ministers' engagements this far in advance.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the strategic importance of avoiding reliance on imported coal in the generating of electricity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Decisions on fuel procurement are a commercial matter for the electricity generating companies, subject only to compliance with the fuel stocking directions given under section 34 of the Electricity Act 1989. Both National Power and PowerGen have stated that they will seek to diversify their fuel sources.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what powers he has to prevent the privatised electricity generating companies from becoming dependent on imported coal.
  161
  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  It is not the Government's policy to place any restrictions on coal imports. The Government have no powers to do so other than in emergencies.

  Fluidised Bed Combustion
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects development of fluidised bed combustion technology to be economically desirable and commercially viable.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Fluidised bed combustion is already an established technology available in the marketplace. More than 100 combustor units have been installed in the United Kingdom alone.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Polwhele Laboratory
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to change the status of the Polwhele veterinary investigation centre laboratory; and if he will make a statement about its future.

  Mr. Curry
  We expect to be able to make an announcement shortly on the outcome of the review of the veterinary investigation service, including the Polwhele—Truro—centre.

  Milk
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions there have been in 1990 and 1991 for violations of the Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  In England and Wales these regulations are enforced by this Department in respect of untreated milk producers and by local authorities in respect of processing dairies and distributors of untreated milk. The Department has not mounted any prosecutions under these regulations in 1990 and 1991. However, 147 producers of untreated milk have had their licences suspended for inability to comply with the regulations in the period 1 April to 31 December 1990. Information on prosecutions and other enforcement action taken by local authorities is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to ensure that bottles of untreated milk contain health warnings on the side of the bottle, rather than on the bottle cap.

  Mr. Curry
  The Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 1989 already require that where untreated milk is sold in a bottle, the words"This milk has not been heat treated and may therefore contain organisms harmful to health"
  must appear elsewhere than on the cap.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to introduce legislation to ban the sale of untreated milk.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 30 January,Official Report, column 546.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the set-aside scheme was introduced; when it came into effect; and what is the total sum expended by each European Community nation and by the European Community institutions on the scheme in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC set-aside scheme was introduced as part of the EC stabilisers package. It was intended to provide farmers with an alternative source of income, while they adjusted to the effects of price constraint, and to reduce production of surplus arable crops. The scheme was agreed by the Council of Ministers in April 1988 and member states were required to introduce schemes by mid-July 1988. No member state fulfilled this obligation, although the United Kingdom, Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany introduced national schemes by mid-August 1988.

  Information on expenditure in individual member states is not available but the Commission has estimated that the amount reimbursed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in 1990 in respect of the scheme was 42·3 mecu—£29·5 million.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land have been approved for subsidy in each member state since the introduction of the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest information available indicates that the following areas have been entered into set-aside in the first two years of the scheme.

  Hectares

  United Kingdom

  100,809

  Germany

  222,384

  Netherlands

  8,737

  Belgium

  490

  France

  55,409

  Ireland

  2,768

  Spain

  46,303

  Greece

  250

  Italy

  251,617

  Luxembourg

  37

  Denmark

  0

  Total

  688,804

  Source: EC Commission.

  Note:—Portugal is not required to implement the scheme until 1995.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of land were devoted to cereal production in each member state, respectively, before the introduction of the set-aside scheme; and how many hectares were devoted to this Production purpose at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Million hectares

  1988 cereals harvest area

  1990 cereals harvest area1

  Belgium

  0·35

  0·35

  Denmark

  1·60

  1·56

  Germany

  4·73

  4·49

  Greece

  1·36

  1·38

  163

  1988 cereals harvest area

  1990 cereals harvest area1

  Spain

  7·64

  7·45

  France

  9·15

  8·98

  Ireland

  0·35

  0·33

  Italy

  4·38

  4·20

  Luxembourg

  0·04

  0·03

  Netherlands

  0·20

  0·20

  Portugal

  0·93

  0·74

  United Kingdom

  3·90

  3·66

  Total

  34·61

  33·36

  1Provisional.

  Source: EC Commission balance sheets.

  Notes:

  1. The EC scheme was introduced in 1988, but most member states did not introduce national schemes until after the 1988 harvest.

  2. The German figures exclude production in the former German Democratic Republic.

  3. Portugal is not required to implement the scheme until 1995.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the production of the various forms of cereals which are covered by the set-aside scheme in each member state in the annual period before the introduction of set-aside; and what are the comparable annual figures in respect of the most recent period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Million tonnes

  1988 cereals production

  1990 cereals production1

  Belgium

  2·21

  2·05

  Denmark

  8·07

  9·82

  Germany

  27·11

  26·04

  Greece

  4·59

  3·76

  Spain

  23·15

  18·20

  France

  55·87

  54·64

  Ireland

  1·98

  1·95

  Italy

  16·56

  16·35

  Luxembourg

  0·12

  0·13

  Netherlands

  1·22

  1·37

  Portugal

  1·30

  1·31

  United Kingdom

  21·11

  22·42

  Total

  163·27

  158·02

  1 Provisional.

  Source: EC Commission balance sheets.

  Notes:

  1. The EC scheme was introduced in 1988, but most member states did not introduce national schemes until after the 1988 harvest.

  2. The German figures exclude production in the former German Democratic Republic.

  3. Portugal is not required to implement the scheme until 1995.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present level of radioactive emissions from Sellafield into the Irish sea; and what the comparable figures were five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is jointly responsible with the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for the authorisation of radioactive discharges from sites such as Sellafield.

  The Ministry conducts a regular and extensive programme of monitoring for radioactivity in the marine environment around the United Kingdom coastline,
  164
  including the Irish sea and the results are published annually in reports entitled "Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  These reports show that the levels of radioactivity in liquid discharges from the Sellafield site to the Irish sea have been reduced very substantially in recent years, as indicated in the table.

  1979

  1984

  1989

  Sellafield sea pipeline:

  Beta radioactivity (TBq)

  4,058

  1,190

  101·4

  Alpha radioactivity (TBq)

  62

  14

  2·7

  Seaburn Sewer:

  Total radioactivity (TBq)

  0·011

  0·0038

  0·0012

  As a result, even those people living near the site who consume large amounts of local fish and shellfish will in 1989 have received a radiation dose of only 0·19 mSv, less than one fifth of the internationally recommended limit of 1 mSv.

  Captive Birds
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further information he has on the levels of mortality in imported captive birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The second report by the Ministry on mortalities in imported captive birds, relating to imports in 1989, shows that of 184,600 birds, 4,000 were dead on arrival and a further 19,500 died in post-import quarantine. The average mortality has fallen slightly to 12·7 per cent. compared with 13·7 per cent. in the previous year, but the figures are still a grave cause for concern. I am placing copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  For wild-caught birds these statistics do not reveal the full extent of losses. We do not know how many birds are dying from stress just after capture and in transport within the country of origin, but it must be assumed that numbers will be high. I do not find such levels of mortality acceptable and the Department is doing all that it can to reduce losses.

  In the past year our veterinary officials have visited certain major exporting countries and more visits are planned. During these visits we impress on the relevant authorities the need to fulfil our import requirements and to follow International Air Transport Association—IATA—standards during flights to the United Kingdom. We are considering revised requirements for pre-export isolation and certification where appropriate. We will cease to authorise imports of birds from any country which fails to co-operate in implementing our requirements.

  I have written to airlines to emphasise the importance of complying with the IATA rules and of reviewing airline procedures where necessary. Since then some have decided not to transport birds on certain routes.

  I have instituted a review of standards in quarantine premises for birds with particular reference to stocking densities. As a result, the number of birds permitted in each quarantine premises, based on their physiological and behavioural needs, will be specified. These measures, which will be introduced as quickly as possible, are expected to result in a reduction in consignment sizes in

  165
  many cases especially for non-psittacine species. Irrespective of this the maximum number of non-psittacines in any consignment permitted in any licence issued from 1 April will be reduced from 6,000 to 4,000.

  Applicants for licences to import birds are also now required to provide more detailed information. Further changes are also being considered to tighten the application of our disease prevention rules.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering what further action can be taken within his responsibilities. We have also drawn our concerns to the attention of the European Commission who have agreed that controls are needed on trade in species which are particularly vulnerable during captivity and transport. This issue, and the development of common welfare standards for transport, will be taken forward in Community discussions.

  Government action can, however, only achieve so much. Many of the problems with this trade would be reduced if the public no longer purchased captive birds. There are a number of species of birds which simply should not be taken from the wild and subjected to captivity. No one should even consider buying or keeping birds unless proper care and facilities are available. Captive bred stock should be used whenever possible in order to minimise the taking of wild specimens.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all future(a) conferences, (b) seminars and (c) meetings which Ministers in his Department have been invited to attend (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the European Community and (iii) elsewhere; and if he will list the dates of these events for the next three months.

  Mr. Gummer
  For obvious reasons, it is not normal practice to collate and publicise information on Ministers' engagements this far in advance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of severely disabled people in employment, or self-employment, who require nursing or personal care to enable them to continue to work, the average number of hours required per week and the average cost of such care.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Housing Benefit, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Lambeth are receiving housing benefit based on claims for reimbursement made by Lambeth council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 30 November 1990, the housing benefit caseload in the London borough of Lambeth was 29,380.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in Newcastle upon Tyne have received payment for vibration white finger since December 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Telephone Facilities
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now make available the British Telecom star service facilities to Members of Parliament and their secretaries' telephones in the House of Commons throughout the entire British Telecom network.

  Mr. MacGregor
  British Telecom's star service is available for all single-line customers whose telephone has a multi-frequency signalling capacity with a time break recall and is served by a digital exchange. The lines provided for Members from the Palace of Westminster telecommunications exchange are not compatible with that system, nor is the exchange itself designed to provide such access.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there has been a statistical sampling test by operating computer software or otherwise to ensure that oral questions submitted by hon. Members are being selected on a proven random basis.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The "shuffle" to determine the order in which tabled oral questions appear on the Order Paper is conducted under arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker. I refer my hon. Friend to Mr. Speaker's statement of 15 November 1989,Official Report, column 356, on the occasion that the computerised shuffle was introduced. I understand that appropriate tests were run on the computer software before the system was introduced. Further information may be obtained from the Table Office.

ENVIRONMENT

  Crown Supplies
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total salary cost, including pay bonuses and compensation paid on termination of contract of the Crown Suppliers main board members in the period January 1990 to January 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  A total of £291,344·50 in the calendar year 1990, excluding two payments under the principle civil service pension scheme for compulsory early retirement and one payment in 1991 in respect of a board member whose service ceased in 1990. In addition, £44,349·11 was paid in 1990 to the non-civil servants who acted as TCS chairman and special projects director.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government have played a leading role in developing environmental protection measures both nationally and internationally. The privatisation of the water industry in 1989 strengthened pollution controls and resulted in increased investment: some £28 billion will be spent in the next decade. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provided for a new system of integrated pollution control and waste disposal management. In September 1990 the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" set out the Government's environmental strategy for the next decade.

  The Government have promoted several initiatives for the conservation of nature and the countryside. They have improved the efficiency of the land use planning system as an instrument for guiding development in ways that both facilitate economic growth and protect the environment. They have made good progress with the regeneration of our inner cities, including the creation of 10 new urban development corporations since 1987 and doubling the number of inner city task forces to 16.

  The Government have continued to promote the growth of owner-occupation; have increased the choices available to tenants, in particular by deregulating rents of new private lettings: and have obtained better value for money from public expenditure by ensuring that investment and subsidies are increasingly focused where they are most needed.

  In local government, the Government have reformed the system of local government finance and taxation. They have also promoted the efficiency of local authorities by requiring competition in the provision of certain services. A new review is now looking afresh at the structure and finances of local authorities.

  Housing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down all housing development started since the urban development corporations began their operations, by tenure.

  Mr. Portillo
  There were an estimated 16,100 housing completions in urban development corporation areas to March 1990. Of the 15,247 completions for which information is available, 12,226–80 per cent.—were for private ownership, 2,191–14 per cent.—for housing associations and 830–6 per cent.—were private or local authority rental.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a permanent helpline to his Department to give advice to homeless people sleeping on the streets.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department provides £2 million this year and £4·5 million next year to voluntary organisations providing advice and practical help to homeless people. A substantial proportion is targeted on rough sleepers. Among the projects receiving grant aid is a 24-hour telephone housing advice service in London.
  168
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice his Department is giving when contacted by homeless people sleeping rough or their representatives on the availability of emergency shelter;

  (2) what information is made available to people sleeping rough about the locations of emergency shelters; and where it is available.

  Mr. Yeo
  Those seeking advice are referred to the help lines being run by the Piccadilly advice centre and the housing advice switchboard. These organisations have information on the availability of accommodation in emergency shelters and other hostels, as do the Metropolitan police and the voluntary organisations working with single homeless people.

  Community Charge
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of community chargepayers in each district of Northants who will benefit from the community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Key
  Community charge registers for individual local authorities are not held centrally and I am not, therefore, at present able to make detailed estimates by local authority area. Estimates for England of the numbers likely to benefit from the community charge reduction scheme are based on sample survey data.

  The table shows, for each district in Northamptonshire, the level of rateable value below which a community charge reduction may be available for a two adult household; and shows this rateable value as a percentage of the average rateable value of domestic properties in each district. Reductions will depend on the number of chargepayers resident in a property on 31 March 1990, and will be payable to chargepayers who have not changed their sole or main residence since that date.

  Level of rateable value below which two adult households benefit from community charge reduction scheme

  Rateable value

  Percentage of district average

  (£)

  Corby

  240

  130·7

  Daventry

  221

  97·4

  East Northamptonshire

  211

  117·5

  Kettering

  219

  122·5

  Northampton

  221

  108·7

  South Northamptonshire

  227

  99·4

  Wellingborough

  193

  105·0

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much assistance a couple living in a property of half average rateable value in Bury will receive under the community charge reduction scheme in 1992.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1991–92 a couple living in a property with half the average rateable value in Bury will be entitled to a reduction under the community charge reduction scheme of £373. If the 1991–92 community charge set by Bury is less than £380, the reduction will be smaller. Community charge benefit will further reduce the community charge for couples with low incomes.

  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much assistance a couple
  169
  living in a property of half average rateable value in (a) Lancaster and (b) Wyre borough will receive under the community charge reduction scheme next year.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1991–92 a couple living in a property with half the average rateable value in the area will be entitled to a reduction under the community charge reduction scheme of(a) £497 in Lancaster, and (b) £420 in Wyre, provided they have not moved since 31 March 1990, and assuming that the community charges set are not less than £402 in Lancaster and £376 in Wyre. Community charge benefit will reduce further the community charge for couples with low incomes.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what criteria are taken into consideration and what procedures are followed in the designation of new sites of special scientific interest;

  (2) what criteria are taken into consideration and what procedures are followed in determining whether designated sites of special scientific interest remain sites of special scientific interest; and how often the special scientific interest of a designated site is re-assessed.

  Mr. Trippier
  The procedures for designating sites of special scientific interest are set out in section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985.

  The Nature Conservancy Council's "Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs" together with the first volume of guidelines in respect of geological and physiographical SSSIs, give details of the scientific criteria for selection. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The successor bodies to the Nature Conservancy Council will develop a programme for the regular monitoring of SSSIs. The reassessment of the special scientific interest of will reflect the results of this programme.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all future environmental(a) conferences, (b) seminars and (c) meetings which Ministers in his Department have been invited to attend (i) in the United Kingdom, (ii) in the European Community and (iii) elsewhere; and if he will list the dates of these events for the next three months.

  Mr. Trippier
  For obvious reasons, it is not normal practice to collate and publicise information on Ministers' engagements this far in advance.

  Colliery Spoil
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the use of colliery spoil for infilling and other civil engineering projects and to consult those officials of British Coat who are qualified to provide assessment of such matters.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department already encourages alternative uses of colliery spoil where practicable, environmentally acceptable and economically viable. Circular 20/87, issued in conjuction with the Department 170
  of Transport and the Welsh Office, advises highway authorities to inform the local planning authorities and waste producer of road schemes at an early stage, so that information on waste materials as potential sources of fill can be incorporated into the instructions for tenderers. The Government also set aside £2·5 million to fund a number of colliery-spoil disposal demonstration schemes so that the practical, environmental and economic aspects of utilising colliery spoil for engineered fill and civil engineering projects could be investigated. More generally, I am concerned that potentially valuable waste materials, including colliery spoil, are under-utilised and my Department has commissioned research to appraise their occurrence and use. This study is looking at the physical and economic constraints to their greater utilisation and will identify ways in which these could be overcome. The research is being carried out in full consultation with officials at British Coal.

  Housing Investment Programme, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give details of the calculations which led him to announce a basic credit approval of £372,000 in 1991–92 for the housing investment programme of Rutland district council; and what was the bid submitted by the council.

  Mr. Yeo
  Rutland's guidelines for all services totalled £717,000. From this figure was deducted £238,000 for receipts taken into account. The resulting basic credit approval of £479,000 may be allocated as the council wishes.

  Contaminated Clinoptilolite
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what methods exist for the disposal of radioactively contaminated clinoptilolite.

  Mr. Trippier
  Clinoptilolite is used to remove radioactivity from liquids in the Sellafield ion exchange plant. Radioactively contaminated clinoptilolite, like other intermediate-level waste, is currently stored on site. It is proposed that it be treated in the new encapsulation plant and stored prior to final disposal in the Nirex deep facility.

PRIME MINISTER

  Antarctic Minerals
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments are involved in the review of policy towards Antarctic minerals, in addition to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The Prime Minister
  The Departments of the Environment, of Trade and Industry and of Energy.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to the British representative at the current
  171
  session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva to stress the need for the commission to take active note of gross violations of human rights by the Government of Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The head of the British delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission is fully aware of the concern about human rights violations in Ethiopia and will be guided accordingly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have come to light in each year since the implementation of the Act; what were the offences charged; how many defendants were convicted and for how many offences; what was the range of punishments imposed; and how many experimenters had their licences revoked.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1987, the first year of the operation of the Act, nine cases of infringements were decided. None of the cases was sufficiently serious to merit referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In one case a licence was revoked.

  In 1988, 20 cases of infringements were decided, of which two were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In both cases the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to institute criminal proceedings. In two cases the relevant licences were revoked.

  In 1989, 14 cases of infringements were decided. No cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In one case a licence was revoked.

  In 1990, 14 cases of infringements were decided. No cases were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In three cases, a total of seven project and personal licences were revoked.

  Infringements may include breaches of conditions of licences as well as possible offences under the Act. Where licences are not revoked, an infringement may lead, where appropriate, to the imposition of additional strict conditions on the project or personal licences or on the certificate of designation for the establishment.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits by inspectors to animal experimentation laboratories were carried out in each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Details for 1978 to 1988 are given in "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1988"—Cm 743—and details for 1989 in the 1989 volume—Cm 1152. The figures for 1989 reflect a change in the system for recording visits made by inspectors in the light of the change in their duties under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of laboratories licensed for animal experimentation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in each year since the entry into force of the Act.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  At 31 December 1987 there were 372 such establishments. On the same date in 1988 and 1989 there were 375.

  Police Force, Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the capital budget of each police force in Wales for 1991–92; and what were the comparable figures for each year from 1979 onwards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Capital budgets for police forces are the responsibility of police authorities, but annual returns of capital spending, which police authorities have made to the Welsh Office, show that capital expenditure by police forces in Wales since 1983–84 was as follows:

  £ million

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  Total

  1983–84

  0·093

  0·887

  0·822

  2·793

  4·595

  1984–85

  0·324

  1·147

  0·876

  2·538

  4·885

  1985–86

  2·396

  0·835

  1·232

  2·527

  6·990

  1986–87

  2·611

  0·687

  1·011

  1·228

  5·537

  1987–88

  1·355

  0·589

  1·056

  2·894

  5·894

  1988–89

  0·705

  0·838

  1·510

  2·943

  5·996

  1989–90

  0·675

  2·360

  2·852

  4·379

  10·226

  Under new arrangements for financing police capital expenditure, which came into operation on 1 April 1990, Government grant on police capital expenditure is allocated to individual police authorities in advance and is cash limited. The grant allocated to police authorities in Wales will support the following expenditure:

  £ million

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  North Wales

  South Wales

  Total

  1990–91

  0·653

  2·196

  0·846

  1·512

  5·207

  1991–92

  1·634

  4·959

  1·462

  4·145

  12·200

  It is open to police authorities to incur capital expenditure above these levels, but such expenditure would not attract Government grant and would have to be met from their own resources.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time currently being taken to process applications for naturalisation;

  (2) how many applications for naturalisation submitted in (a) 1988 and (b) 1989 remain outstanding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average time now being taken to complete applications for naturalisation is 32 months. At the end of January, 16,302 applications submitted in 1988 and 19,495 submitted in 1989 remained outstanding.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners held on remand in police cells on 1 February.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On Friday 1 February there were 604 prisoners in police cells. The precise split between remand and other prisoners is not available centrally but most would have been remand prisoners.

  Public Information Films
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the public information films and the subject matter of each that was shown on
  173
  each channel of (a) the BBC and (b) commercial television, during 1989, 1990 and the first two months of 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This material is not readily available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member with the information we can provide.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gulf Oil Slicks
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuit of the United Nations General Assembly second committee resolution 44/224, dated 24 November 1989, as a result of the occurrence of oil slicks in the Gulf.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been asked to reply.

  In response to this resolution, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP—commissioned a feasibility study into proposals for improved international co-operation in the monitoring, assessment and anticipation of environmental threats and assistance in the case of environmental emergencies. The United Kingdom Government look forward to discussing the study's proposals at UNEP's governing council in June this year before they are submitted to the United Nations General Assembly.

  Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has also provided expert advice and other assistance to the Governments of the Gulf states as set out in my letter to hon. Members of 6 February. The International Maritime Organisation, a specialised agency of the United Nations based in London, is co-ordinating offers of pollution control equipment and expertise to assist with the oil spill. The United Kingdom is co-operating fully and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has contributed secretariat support and other services to the IMO for this purpose.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made in respect of Leonid Zolotarevsky of Tallin and Leah Yusyfiva of Dzhezkazgan who have been unsuccessfully applying to leave the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We can certainly raise these cases with the Soviet authorities, but in order to make our representations most effective we shall need further details.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current queues of applicants for entry clearance in each category for the latest available month and the numbers in each queue at the posts at(a) Bombay, (b) Karachi, (c) New Delhi, (d) Dhaka, (e) Nairobi, (f) Calcutta, (g) Islamabad and (h) Dar es Salaam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 31 December 1990, the estimated waiting times, in months, for persons applying for entry clearance were:174

  Settlement

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Bombay

  0

  5

  9

  10

  Karachi

  1

  3

  3

  6

  New Delhi

  1

  3

  6

  10

  Dhaka

  3

  4

  4

  9

  Nairobi1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calcutta2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islamabad

  3

  5

  8

  15

  Dar es Salaam3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 One day for all settlement applicants.

  2 No settlement queues.

  3 Less than one week's delay for all settlement applicants.

  The number of applicants waiting in the queues for first interview, as at 31 December 1990, were:

  Settlement

  Ql

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Bombay

  0

  130

  372

  119

  Karachi

  13

  86

  25

  1

  New Delhi

  5

  261

  281

  120

  Dhaka

  425

  816

  132

  619

  Nairobi1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calcutta1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islamabad

  96

  2,312

  468

  393

  Dar es Salaam1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 No settlement queues.

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1—Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years old, special compassionate cases.

  Q2—Spouses, and children under 18 yeas old.

  Q3—Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  Q4—Re-applicants.

  Applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait five days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on the day of application.

  Tamils
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the numbers of Tamils who have been killed or wounded during the civil war in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Reliable information on the number of casualties is not available either for Tamils or for other ethnic groups.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sri Lanka about human rights violations and attacks against civilian populations in Tamil areas of that country by Government armed forces.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We regularly raise with the Sri Lankan Government our concerns about their human rights performance and the conduct of its security forces in dealing with the terrorist challenge they face. I did so when I met the Sri Lankan high commissioner on 19 December. The British high commissioner is also in touch with the Sri Lankan Government's special task force, established to investigate reported human rights violations.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the civil war in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We deeply regret the continuing violence in Sri Lanka, which stems from a decision by the
  175
  "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" to abandon long-running negotiations with the Sri Lankan Government in June 1990 and resume terrorism. We support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to overcome the terrorist challenge they face, but, at the same time, have made clear our concerns that human rights should be fully respected.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the allocation of money from the know-how fund for Bulgaria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 18 February the extension of the know-how fund for eastern Europe to Bulgaria. This is in recognition of Bulgaria's commitment to political and economic reform and requirement for "intellectual know-how". There is no formal commitment to spending on individual countries under the know-how fund in any one year. Actual disbursement will depend on the identification of sensible projects in priority areas. An early visit to Bulgaria is planned to discuss our overall strategy with the Bulgarian authorities.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made since the end of the Vina del Mar conference on 6 December 1990, towards the preparation of a draft environmental protocol to protect Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Antarctic treaty parties have had no formal consultations since the meeting in Vina del Mar in December and so no further progress towards the preparation of a draft environmental protocol to protect Antarctica has been made. Discussion on the protocol will continue at the reconvened XIth special consultative meeting in Madrid in April.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the recent consultative meeting in Chile, what options he is considering for Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of mining in Antarctica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  It was clear at the meeting in Chile that neither the Antarctic minerals convention alone nor a simple ban on mineral activity provide for a solution of the minerals issue. We are considering how best, in these circumstances, to achieve a return to consensus.

  Lithuania
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to raise the result of the independence referendum held in Lithuania with the Security Council of the United Nations or with the Council for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. We do not believe discussion in the United Nations Security Council would provide an answer to the problem. We raised the Baltic issue at meetings of the CSCE in Vienna and Valletta in January.176
  With our partners in the European Community, we have invoked the CSCE human dimension mechanism. The mechanism enables CSCE states to raise human rights questions directly with the state concerned.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has been in contact with European Community Foreign Ministers to discuss the outcome of the independence referendum in Lithuania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met his EC colleagues in Luxembourg on 19 February for a European political co-operation ministerial meeting. The situation in the Soviet Union and the Baltic republics was among the subjects discussed. We have noted the outcome of the Lithuanian referendum with interest, and hope that genuine negotiations will now take place about the way forward.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will grant recognition to the republic of Lithuania following the outcome of the independence referendum held in Lithuania on 9 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Lithuania does not fulfil the well-established criteria that we have applied to the recognition of a state. These are that it should have, and seem likely to continue to have, a clearly defined territory with a population, a Government who are able of themselves to exercise control of that territory, and independence in its external relations. However, we recognise and support the wish of the Lithuanian people to determine their own future. We believe that the way forward is through peaceful negotiations between the Soviet authorities and the elected Lithuanian authorities.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to or received from President Landsbergis of Lithuania, President Gorbachev of the USSR, the embassy of the USSR in London and the Lithuanian Association in London, following the result of the independence referendum in Lithuania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received no representations on this specific question. We are in frequent contact with the Soviet authorities, and with the authorities of the Baltic republics, over developments there.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his European Community counterparts; and if he will raise the question of how the European Community should respond to the outcome of the independence referendum held in Lithuania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met his EC colleagues in Luxembourg on 19 February for a European political co-operation ministerial meeting. The situation in the Soviet Union and the Baltic republics was among the subjects discussed. We have noted the outcome of the Lithuanian referendum with interest, and hope that genuine negotiations will now take place about the way forward.

  Baltic States
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations or offers of assistance his Department has made to the Inter-Parliamentary Union to facilitate the sending of an all-party parliamentary delegation to the Baltic states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made clear to the IPU that the FCO would be happy to facilitate the proposed visit of an all-party parliamentary delegation to the Baltic states. Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow has been in contact with the Supreme Soviet to urge it to give an early response to the IPU's initiative.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the claim by the Soviet Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov that western banks were in a plan to destabilise the Soviet currency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information to substantiate Mr. Pavlov's claim. Both our interests and those of the Soviet Union would be best served by the emergence of a free market there. An unstable currency would hinder, not help that process.

  Belgium (Arms Dealers)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to discuss with his Belgian counterpart ways of developing international restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missile system sales by arms dealers operating out of Brussels.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We discuss the export of arms with Belgium and with our other partners in the Twelve. We expect to work more closely together in this field in the future. Both Britain and Belgium are also members of the missile technology control regime which aims to combat the proliferation of ballistic missile equipment and technology.

  Nuclear Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) of 12 February,Official Report, column 387, whether the United Kingdom made any substantive input into the discussions at the non-proliferation treaty review conference concerning the threat of military attacks on nuclear facilities.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom made substantive input into all discussions at the NPT review conference.

  Kuwait (Reconstruction)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names and companies of those business representatives who accompanied him when he visited the Kuwaiti Government in exile; on what basis these representatives were selected; if any part of their travel or other expenses was met from public funds; and if he will make a statement.
  178
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: The business representatives who accompanied my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were selected on the basis of their position in the sectors of British industry which are most likely to play a part in the reconstruction of Kuwait. They were:

  Mr. Peter Berry—Managing Director, Crown Agents.

  Mr. Alan Cockshaw—Chairman, AMEC PLC.

  Mr. David Douglas Home—Chairman of the Committee on Middle East Trade and Director of Morgan Grenfell.

  Mr. Allan Gormly—Chairman of the Overseas Projects Board: MD of John Brown Engineering and Director of Trafalgar House PLC.

  Mr. Jim Langford—Chairman, Engineering and Construction Division, Costain Group PLC.

  Mr. Bill Pixie—Chairman, Middle East and North Africa Committee, British Consultants Bureau and Associate, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners Ltd.

  Rt. Hon. Lord Prior—Chairman GEC PLC.

  Mr. Adrian White—Chairman, Biwater.

  No part of their travel or other expenses was met from public funds other than the cost of transport by coach between Jeddah and Ta'if

TRANSPORT

  Light Aircraft (Insurance)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to require light aircraft owners to take out insurance which would safeguard the general public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received, in response to requests to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, advice on the issues relating to the introduction of a compulsory insurance scheme for all aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering that advice.

  Badgers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when considering the proposed route for the M3 extension what consideration was given to the impact of the route through meadowland on the habitat for badgers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  During the many discussions between my Department and ecological and conservation interests, there have been no suggestions or evidence of badger activity in the vicinity of the proposed route for the final section of the M3 motorway at Winchester. A habitat survey will be carried out this spring and if evidence of badger activity is found appropriate measures including the need for crossings will be considered.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research evidence he has received on the comparative reductions in numbers of drink drivers in Great Britain and New South Wales since either the year before or the year after the introduction of random tests in New South Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  Random breath testing was introduced in New South Wales in December 1982. One measure of the subsequent reduction in the numbers of drink drivers is the fall in the proportion of drivers killed whose blood alcohol level was known who were over the limit. This has fallen
  179
  from 36 per cent. in 1983 to 33 per cent. in 1989. The comparative figures for Great Britain show a fall from 28 to 19 per cent., a fall of nine percentage points.

  Passenger Safety
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the effects on passenger safety of overloading British Rail trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Transport received around 4,000 letters about British Rail in the last year, some of which raised questions about various aspects of overcrowding. Precise figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Train Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects of British Rail's proposed reduction of train services on the Stoke on Trent to Derby service on the local transport infrastructure in the light of his Department's west midlands regional brief, published in January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The level of service on individual lines is a matter for British Rail, subject to the quality of service standards set by the Government.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the footpath and bridleway crossings of the east coast main line for which he has made orders under section 124 of the Transport Act 1968; and if he will place copies of those orders in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's railway inspectorate has no record of any order being issued under section 124 of the Transport Act 1968 in respect of footpath and bridleway crossings on the east coast main line.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his policy on the divestment of public land in a depressed market;

  (2) how many acres of land surplus to operation requirements are owned by British Rail.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The policies that the Government look for in the handling of British Rail land require that the board should make a commercial plan for indentifying and divesting itself of all its underused or surplus property for early outright disposal subject to the need to avoid distress sales. Some 21,500 acres of surplus land are held by British Rail and are available for disposal.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to ask the railway inspectorate to prescribe maximum safe carrying capacities for British Rail trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's advice is that British Rail's rolling stock is designed to be safe, whatever the numbers travelling on board. Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham rail accident concluded that if the trains in that accident had been overcrowded, passengers having to stand would not have been at any greater risk than those sitting down. The 180
  inquiry into the Cannon Street accident will be considering whether overcrowding on that train had any effect on the risk of injury to which individual passengers were exposed. As a matter of comfort rather than safety, British Rail's current objectives include train loading standards.

  Hazardous Substances
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the possible replacement of the Hazchem safety code with the European Community's Kemler code; and what consultation there has been on this subject with the Health and Safety Commission and local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and local authorities, all prompted by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association—CACFOA. On 16 October 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) received a deputation of north-eastern Members with the president of CACFOA who spoke in favour of the Hazchem code. The Health and Safety Executive has initiated a review of the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981 which contain the requirements for placards. They have been discussing with all interested parties, including local authority organisations, what should be done, taking account of the fact that the Kemler code is used throughout Europe whereas the Hazchem code is only used in the United Kingdom.

  HGV Licences
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to require all drivers of heavy goods vehicle-type vehicles used in road construction to hold heavy goods vehicle licences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Drivers of road construction machines, engineering plant, works trucks and digging machines will continue to be exempt from the requirement to hold heavy goods vehicle and large goods vehicle drivers' licences in the new licensing system.

  Road Schemes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road schemes in which his Department has extended the distance limit for safeguarding purposes beyond the 67 m limit specified in article 15(1)(b) of the General Development Order 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: The distance limit for safeguarding purposes has been extended beyond 67 m in only one case. That is the proposed widening of an approximately 80 mile-long section of the M1 in the east midlands, which forms part of our published intention to widen the motorway between junctions 6A and 33. In this case the safeguarding distance is 67 m from the centre line of each carriageway, slip road, junction and service area or 30 m beyond the existing motorway boundary, whichever is the greater.

SCOTLAND

  Skills Improvement
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions in the past five years financial expenditure has been given or offered by the Industry Department of Scotland to help existing or incoming firms with the upgrading of the skills of their present or proposed work force.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Until 15 December 1988 when the scheme was closed training grants under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 were available to help companies in the assisted areas meet the training costs of new investment projects. Between 1 April 1985 and 15 December 1988, 10 offers of such grant were accepted by Scottish companies. Further details are available in successive annual reports of the Industrial Development Act.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently homeless in Lothian and Edinburgh respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures available centrally relate to the number of households which apply to local authorities and are assessed by them under Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Over the 12 months to 31 March 1990, the number assessed as homeless in Edinburgh was 1,957; the corresponding figure for Lothian was 2,636. I announced in December 1990 that an extra £2 million allocation would be made available in 1991–92 for homelessness projects in the four cities. An announcement of the schemes to be assisted will be made very soon.

  Mentally Ill People (Homelessness)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of mentally ill people who have been homeless for more than(a) four weeks, (b) eight weeks, (c) six months, and (d) one year in (i) Scotland, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Sheltered Accommodation (Renfrew)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long he estimates it will take to provide a sheltered home for every person in Renfrew district who desires one, if expenditure is maintained at its current level.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  No such estimates are made centrally. The provisional housing capital allocations for 1991–92 issued to Renfrew district council total £21·561 million. Apart from £0·757 million which is earmarked to fund innovative housing projects in the Ferguslie Park partnership area, the remainder of these resources are available for use at the discretion of the local authority to meet housing needs in the area, including the provision of sheltered housing if that is a local priority.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are waiting on a sheltered home within Renfrewshire district.
  182
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Milk
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much organic milk is produced in Scotland; and what proportion is pasteurised.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No record is held centrally of the volume of milk described as organic, produced in Scotland; any milk sold to the public would require to be heat treated—pasteurised, sterilised, UHT—in accordance with the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Order 1988.

  Neil Duncan Case
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the interests of youths named in the Crown Office indictment against Neil Duncan and others have been adequately safeguarded; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, has the universal and exclusive title to prosecute on indictment in the public interest.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of the Crown Office in the case of the Crown v. Neil Duncan and others.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The role of the Crown Office in this case did not differ from its role in any other proceedings on indictment.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the Exchequer of Crown Office time in preparing the indictment against Neil Duncan and others.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost has been calculated as about £225.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to satisfy hmself that it was necessary for the Crown Office to name youths who were unconnected to the charges with which the Crown eventually proceeded, in the indictment against Neil Duncan and others.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The indictments were drafted in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure in Scotland without challenge.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the Exchequer of legal aid in the case of the Crown v. Neil Duncan and others, including the sums paid in respect of defendants whose pleas of not guilty were accepted by the Crown.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information will not be available until the solicitors' accounts are received by the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of the Scottish work force in each industrial sector who were registered as disabled for each year since 1980.
  183
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Law Reform
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what correspondence he has received from Murgitroyd and Company about section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and what reply he has sent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently received a letter from Mr. Ian Murgitroyd of Murgitroyd and Company to which a reply will be sent shortly.

  Official Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he, or any of his ministerial team, next plans to make an official visit to the Paisley, South constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans at present to visit the hon. Member's constituency in Paisley, South.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all the designated sites of special scientific interest currently in force in Roxburgh and Berwickshire showing the owner of each site.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally. I have asked the Nature Conservancy Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Mr. Lang
  Most Scottish Office buildings have fluorescent lights, and these are cleaned and relamped regularly. Low-energy lamps are fitted wherever possible. A number of incandescent lights have either been replaced with low-energy compact fluorescent units or converted to accept these.

  Food Hygiene
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money is spent annually on specific research programmes to investigate food poisoning; what funds are made available to develop accurate techniques to identify the causes of food poisoning; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The estimated cost of research projects on the microbiological safety of food commissioned by the Scottish Office in the current financial year is £187,000. This is part of a much larger programme of research which is sponsored by other Government Departments.

  Pollution
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 currently under consideration, showing the dates when they were first lodged; and how many such appeals have been determined in the last six months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two appeals, lodged on 24 October 1989 and 27 October 1990, under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, are currently under consideration in Scotland. The appeal lodged on 24 October 1989 is in abeyance pending the outcome of a planning inquiry.

  Three such appeals have been determined in the last six months.

  Scenic Areas
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each national scenic area in Scotland, the square kilometres occupied by each area, the total of all national scenic areas in the Shetland islands, the Orkney islands, the Highland region, the Western isles, Grampian region, Tayside region, Strathclyde region, Central region, Fife region, the Borders region, and Dumfries and Galloway region; what is the total percentage cover of national scenic areas over the whole area of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table, with areas shown in hectares. National scenic areas which lie in more than one region are marked with an asterisk. There are no national scenic areas in Fife or Lothian regions.

  The total hectarage amounts to 1,017,300, or approximately 12·91 per cent. of Scotland's surface.

  "National Scenic Area" is a designation which recognises the character and quality of those landscapes which are considered to merit special protection in a national context.

  Region and Area

  Hectares

  Shetland Isles

  Esha Ness

  1,300

  Muckle Roe

  1,200

  Herma Ness

  1,300

  Fethaland

  1,600

  Foula

  1,500

  Fair Isle

  900

  South West Mainland

  7,800

  Total

  15,600

  Orkney Islands

  Hoy and West Mainland

  Total

  14,800

  Highland Region

  Kyle of Tongue

  18,500

  North-west Sutherland

  20,500

  Assynt-Coigach

  90,200

  Wester Ross

  145,300

  Trotternish

  5,500

  The Cuillin Hills

  21,900

  The Small Isles

  15,500

  Morar, Moidart and Ardnamurchan

  15,900

  Loch Shiel

  13,400

  Knoydart

  39,500

  Kintail

  16,300

  Glen Affric

  19,300

  Glen Strathfarrar

  3,800

  185

  Region and Area

  Hectares

  Dornoch Firth

  7,500

  Ben Nevis and Glen Coe*

  69,600

  The Cairngorm Mountains*

  37,400

  Total

  539,600

  Western Isles

  South Lewis, Harris and North Uist

  108,600

  St. Kilda

  900

  South Uist Machair

  6,100

  Total

  115,600

  Grampian Region

  The Cairngorm Mountains*

  29,800

  Deeside and Lochnagar*

  32,200

  Total

  62,000

  Tayside Region

  Ben Nevis and Glen Coe*

  4,500

  Deeside and Lochnagar*

  7,800

  Loch Tummel

  9,200

  Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon*

  47,100

  River Tay (Dunkeld)

  5,600

  River Earn (Comrie to St. Fillans)

  3,000

  Total

  77,200

  Strathclyde Region

  Ben Nevis and Glen Coe*

  17,500

  Loch na Keal, Isle of Mull

  12,700

  Lynn of Lorn

  4,800

  Scarba, Lunga and the Garvellachs

  1,900

  Jura

  21,800

  Knapdale

  19,800

  Kyles of Bute

  4,400

  North Arran

  23,800

  Loch Lomond*

  30,300

  Total

  137,000

  Central Region

  Loch Rannoch and Glen Lyon*

  1,300

  Loch Lomond*

  13,900

  The Trossachs

  4,600

  Total

  19,800

  Borders Region

  Upper Tweeddale

  12,300

  Eildon and Leaderfoot

  3,600

  Total

  15,900

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  Nith Estuary

  9,300

  East Stewartry Coast

  5,200

  Fleet Valley

  5,300

  Total

  19,800

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the number of hospital beds available to national health service patients in(a) Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde, and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information centrally available is for the year ending 30 September 1990. The average number of available staffed beds then is set out in the table.
  186

  Number

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  11,824

  Strathclyde1

  23,543

  Scotland

  51,503

  1 This covers Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde and Ayrshire and Arran health boards.

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider holding elections for local health council members.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: No.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to abolish independent local health councils and replace them with councils appointed by the health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 February 1991]: Local health councils will continue as in the past to be independent bodies. The difference is that places will no longer be reserved for certain groups. Instead all members will be chosen for their individual attributes and on the basis of the contribution which they can make. The Government's decision on this matter was broadly welcomed by the Opposition Front Bench and I see no need to reconsider it.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those estuaries and other wetlands with nature conservation protection designations, currently facing urban/recreational or industrial development proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: The information is not held centrally. However, the Nature Conservancy Council has conducted a review of the estuaries of Great Britain. I understand the full report will be published soon although a summary was published on 13 February.

  Lithotripsy Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his reply of 28 January,Official Report, column 416, about the Scottish lithotripsy service, what is the level of demand that would justify a lithotripsy service in the West of Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: It would be for a health board to consider whether current and likely future demand could justify the considerable capital investment involved in providing a second lithotripsy service. However, since the existing service can treat urgent cases within a few days and routine cases within two weeks, it is unlikely that the case for such investment could be made in the foreseeable future.

  Health Board Appointees
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what qualifications are possessed by Mr. J. Cahill, Mr. W. M. Ritchie, Mr. I. B. Valentine, Mr. J. W. G. Donaldson, Mrs. A. Dumbar and Dr. K. G. Fegan relevant to their
  187
  appointment as non-executive members of Ayrshire and Arran health board; whether any record is kept of their political affiliations; what other appointments by the Secretary of State are held by any of them; and what are the conditions of termination of their appointment following a change of Government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: All the non-executive members are considered to have experience and ability enabling them to make a valuable personal and collective contribution to the board's work. A central record is not maintained of health board members' political affiliations. The persons in question do not hold other appointments by the Secretary of State. Non-executive members of health boards are appointed for a fixed term of office of two or four years.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training, Merseyside
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans he has to improve training opportunities on Merseyside;

  (2) if he will take steps to improve training opportunities on Merseyside in the light of the announcement that the Merseyside Council for Voluntary Services will cut by 50 per cent. its training places for adults in the coming year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Merseyside TEC is expected to become fully operational in June 1991. It will be for the TEC to address the training needs of Merseyside, making use in its plans of the new range of flexibilities recently introduced for the major training, enterprise, and educational programmes.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of employment in Wiltshire; and what were the figures in 1985 and 1980.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment estimates for counties are compiled only when censuses of employment are taken. The most recent figures available are for September 1987 when there were 206,400 employees in employment in the county of Wiltshire. This compares with 196,700 in September 1984 and 193,800 in September 1981 when the previous censuses were taken. The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's offices and other buildings.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department attaches great importance to promoting energy efficiency and has introduced the following measures to ensure that energy efficient lighting is installed in all of our offices and other buildings.

  1. The specification for new buildings and major refurbishments of existing buildings now includes a requirement that only energy-efficient fluorescent tubes and miniature fluorescent lamps may be used, unless, for exceptional reasons this is not practicable.

  2. Fluorescent tubes and metal filament bulbs in other buildings are being systematically replaced with energy-efficent alternatives.
  188
  My Department closely monitors its energy consumption, and introduces energy-saving measures whenever suitable opportunities occur.

  Departmental Objectives
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes to departmental aims and objectives have been made in the past year; and what is his estimate of their impact on expenditure plans for 1990–91 and future years.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Departmen's aims and objectives—as set out in the departmental report—Cm. 1506. February 1991—were revised during 1990 to focus them more closely on labour market outcomes and to take account of changes in the labour market and in the Department's programmes and activities. The changes to the aims and objectives in themselves had no impact on my Department's expenditure plans.

  The previous set of aims and objectives were presented in the Department of Employment Chapter of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93"—Cm. 1006, January 1990.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for unemployed people in Avon undergoing employment training on the schemes which have been unsuccessful in their tender for contracts for the year commencing 1 April 1991, the numbers and proportion of those on ET(a) who will be able to continue the same or similar course at another site from April 1991 and (b) of those who will not be able to continue on ET, the numbers and proportion who will instead (i) be referred to a job club, (ii) be referred to a Restart counsellor, (iii) be referred to job interview guarantee, or (iv) receive a training credit.

  Mr. Jackson
  Every effort will be made to ensure that those currently on ET who want to continue their training do so. All trainees affected will be reviewed individually so that alternative arrangements of their choice can be identified. Where a person expresses a wish not to continue training they will receive other appropriate help, for example to enhance their job prospects.

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in establishing "next steps" agencies; and if he will make a statement on the arrangements for financial accountability of each agency that has been established.

  Mr. Jackson
  In April 1990 my right hon. and learned Friend established the Employment Service as a "next steps" agency. The Employment Service employs some 35,000 people and its priority is to give positive help to unemployed people through its job placement services and other programmes, and by the payment of benefits and allowances to those entitled to them. It is the biggest agency to be set up so far under the "next steps" initiative.

  The arrangements for the financial accountability of the Employment Service are set out in the financial agreement between the Employment Department and the Employment Service, which is annex 2 to the framework

  189
  document. The financial agreement sets out the respective financial responsibilities of the Department and the agency and seeks to ensure continued accountability for the use of public funds while at the same time allowing ES the necessary flexibility to manage effectively as a "next steps" agency.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what annual reports are to be issued by departmental "next steps" agencies; when they are scheduled to appear; and how they relate to the departmental annual report.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has a single executive agency: the Employment Service—ES—which was launched on 2 April 1990. The chief executive will report to the Secretary of State on ES achievements and use of resources at the end of the financial year. The report will be published in the summer. The departmental report published on 5 February contains Employment Department group expenditure plans for the three years from 1 April 1990.

  Training, Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the training providers for the county of Devon in the coming year; and if he will list those agencies whose services he has dispensed with, together with his reasons.

  Mr. Jackson
  Contractual arrangements with training providers are commercial in confidence and are the responsibility of the Devon and Cornwall TEC.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to monitor job losses in the textile and clothing industry by region and travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Forth
  Estimates of changes in employment in the textile and clothing industry for regions and for travel-to-work areas are available from the biennial censuses of employment.

  Employment service local offices receive advance notice of large scale redundancies and are ready to consider, with the companies involved, specific responses in individual cases. The Department also produces figures on confirmed redundancies for standard regions only, provided that this does not enable individual companies to be identified. I do not intend to add to the burdens on business by extending this information.

DEFENCE

  D Notices
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what D notices have been issued during the current year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No new D notices have been issued in 1991 although on a number of occasions D notice advice has been offered to the media on the basis of the current eight standing D notices on which the system runs and which have been largely unchanged since 1982.

  Military Bases
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been spent on the development of military bases in Yorkshire and Humberside since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Over £300 million has been spent on substantial enhancements to military bases during this period.

  Stand-off Nuclear Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to announce his decision on a stand-off nuclear missile for the Royal Air Force;

  (2) what factors will influence his decision on a stand-off nuclear missile for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As with all equipment procurement decisions, a variety of factors will be taken into account, including cost, performance, time scale and technical risk. Our consideration of the various options is continuing. The House will be informed as soon as a decision is taken.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current establishment of the Territorial Army; and how many vacancies there are;

  (2) what will be the establishment of the Territorial Army if the proposals contained in "Options for Change" are fully implemented;

  (3) what units of the Territorial Army will be retained if the proposals contained in "Options for Change" are fully implemented.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total spent in the last year on recruitment to the reserves; how much has been spent from 1 January 10 date; whether the reserves are at full establishment level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 February 1991]: Spending on recruitment for the reserves in 1989–90 totalled some £3·55 million. A total of £1·5 million has been spent in the current financial year, up to the end of January, of which some £10,000 relates to bills presented since 1 January.

  Previously announced plans for the Territorial Army envisaged an expansion to a total strength, including the Home Service Force, of about 90,000. The current strength is about 75,000. We are not yet in a position to take final decisions on the future size and shape of either organisation.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the existing units of the Terrritorial Army; and where they are located.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to place an order for a batch of type 23 frigates.
  191
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  1 have nothing to add to my answer of 4 December 1990 to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), at column 104.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimate of the costs of the Gulf hostilities at the latest date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The additional costs of the Gulf conflict so far assessed are some £1·5 billion including equipment lost and munitions used. On the basis indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement last week, we expect that the eventual costs could be £3 billion.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Red Crescent has sent him any official figures of the number of civilians killed in recent bombing raids on Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no such reports from the Red Crescent.

  Bunkers, Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts his Department has made with British companies or design consultants involved in the building of underground bunkers in Iraq since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on such matters.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many United Kingdom ground force troops are available for combat in the Gulf;

  (2) how many (a) MoD personnel, (b) United Kingdom service personnel and (c) United Kingdom medical personnel are deployed in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom has committed some 43,000 personnel in total to the coalition force. It would not be appropriate to provide a detailed breakdown of this total, for operational security reasons.

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

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach
Brian Griffiths, Esquire, having been created Baron Griffiths of Fforestfach, of Fforestfach in the County of West Glamorgan, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Harris of High Cross and the Lord Deedes.

Gilt Edged Stocks Issue
2.48 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the United Kingdom monetary authorities have felt constrained to renew the issue of gilt edged stocks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the decision to issue gilts on 23rd January, 4th February and 18th February was taken to assist market management by the Bank of England and is fully consistent with the Government's funding policy.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the latest respectable City forecasts from Kleinwort Benson show the domestic deficit, the borrowing requirement, becoming £11 billion in the next year? The necessary funding for that is forecast to be £20 billion. Is he further aware that in last year's Budget speech Mr. Major stated—and I quote this in order not to do him a disservice—that he deplored previous governments who,
"spent more than they were prepared to raise honestly from taxation"?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/90; col. 1014.]
Later, in the Independent newspaper, he said that he would prefer to raise taxation rather than return to deficit.
Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government will honestly raise taxation to cover this huge deficit, or will they run a disreputable deficit like their predecessors?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know whether or not the noble Lord's forecasts from the City are respectable. However, I do know that in the Autumn Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast a public sector debt repayment of £3 billion. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, a new forecast will be published in the Budget Statement on 19th March.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the latest issue, far from being a market adjustment, is the first visible and minute acknowledgment from the Government that their policy of privatising the public sector borrowing requirement has failed? It has so far reduced the
542
finances and cash flows of industry, with likely losses and reduced profits to be made in the forthcoming year, that a public sector borrowing requirement will be inevitable in default of any increase in taxation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is quite wrong. In recent months there have been substantial purchases of gilts from the private sector by the banks and building societies. The full fund objective means that such purchases have to be funded by sales of gilts by the authorities, thus adding to the amount of gilt sales required. That is why there has been an issue of gilts; nothing else.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the party opposite is expert at borrowing, if at nothing else? Does my noble friend further agree that it is expert as regards approaching the International Monetary Fund?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Noble Lords opposite who were in another place at that time will no doubt know considerably more about that matter than we do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that today's figures show that we are now officially in recession? Would not the right policy be for the Government to run a public service deficit, coupled with substantial reductions in interest rates?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that is of course a decision for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he makes his Budget Statement in March.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was surprised by the remarks that the Minister made in reply to his noble friend. Surely the Minister is aware that the overwhelming majority of the national debt of this country was incurred by Conservative governments, mostly to finance wars over a long period of time. It would be wrong of the Minister not to acknowledge that. Having endeavoured to help the Minister, I must say that I thought I heard him say that the recent issue of gilts was part of the Government's funding policy. Will the Minister tell us what the Government's funding policy now is, and particularly what it will be, as the Government themselves have pretty well acknowledged that the Budget will go into deficit in the coming year?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think the Government have suggested any such thing. On the point about funding policy, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his new year interview in the Financial Times:
"The objective is to balance the budget over the medium term, not in every single year. If damaging and destabilising tax changes are to be avoided, this could mean moving into modest deficit when output is below trend and modest surplus when output is above trend".
I do not think I can express the position more clearly than that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend remember any date on which the party opposite when in power repaid one single penny of the national debt?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. However, this Government have repaid debt to the tune of some £26 billion over the past 11 years.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like this shilly-shallying, but if noble Lords opposite insist on this kind of nonsense I hope I may point out, without boasting—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall get to my question in due course, but the Minister normally likes to understand what the question is about before he endeavours to answer it; that is why I am endeavouring to help him. I speak not for myself but for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Does the Minister recall that the last Chancellor who brought the Government's finances into some kind of equilibrium was a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer? That fact gives us no cause for shame. While we are on this subject, is the Minister aware that what his right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in the Financial Times interview was a complete departure from what his own predecessors had been saying for the past 10 years, which was that the Budget should be balanced every year and not just over the cycle? The Government have quite clearly made a U-turn.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have as a long-term objective sought to obtain a balanced Budget every year. However, as experience has shown, that is not always possible. Our long-term aim has been to achieve balanced Budgets, and in that respect we have been considerably more successful than the previous Labour Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, do I understand in my simple agricultural way that the Government need more money? Is that because they have overspent or because they have not earned enough?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the answer is essentially that we are balancing the amount of Government income and spending on the basis that we are repaying some of the gilt edged stocks which are maturing in the current year.

Middle East: Arms Control
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy to include in the post-war settlement in the Middle East the removal of all weapons of mass destruction from that area.
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is well known. After the Gulf conflict is over, our aim is to work with others to improve security in the Middle East and to make progress on arms control.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord will no doubt know that the Foreign Secretary discussed a similar question two days ago in another place. To a certain degree, he appeared to be looking ahead positively. Is it the Government's policy, in
544
looking ahead, to plan for on-site inspections of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons throughout the whole of that region? If so, does that mean that the nuclear weapons that we know are held by Israel—which is the only nuclear power in that region—will also be subject to on-site inspections?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our policy is to work to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We advocate progress by means in particular of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. As regards Israel's nuclear capability, we believe that all states in the Middle East, including Israel, should sign the non-proliferation treaty and place their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the Government should be more prudent in authorising the sale of arms to other countries? What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the sale of arms? What is the latest position with regard to the Soviet initiative, because these are related matters? Furthermore, has Tariq Aziz returned to Moscow?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot reply to the final question that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked, as I do not have that information. I shall endeavour to address myself to the terms of the Question which concerns the peace settlement after the present conflict in the Gulf is over. As regards arms sales, it is our view that countries must be able to defend themselves and to spend money on arms to maintain their security. However, the concentrations of arms which we have seen in the region give cause for concern. We believe that all arms exporting countries should exercise restraint in arms sales, above all those which could assist the construction of weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the obvious desired end, that Israel should be a subscriber to a major arms agreement, is likely to come about only when Israel's neighbours declare that the state of war which has existed between them and Israel since 1948 has come to an end, so following the admirable example of the late lamented President Sadat which has borne such fruit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the fundamental principles which we hold to with regard to peace in the Middle East is the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to live in security, and with self-determination for the Palestinian people.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us feel that it would be ludicrous if after all the destruction that has taken place in an effort to put down that man Saddam Hussein at the end of the day he was left with weapons of mass destruction and was allowed to get away with it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord's view will be shared by other people. Our aims in the conflict in the Gulf are well-known and are in pursuit of existing United Nations resolutions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, what role do the Government foresee for the International Atomic Energy Authority in the post-war Middle East? Can the Minister say whether the agency's inspections have continued in Iraq since the invasion of Kuwait? Finally, why do the Government oppose the extension of those inspections to nuclear facilities in Israel in accordance with Security Council Resolution 487?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we encourage increased adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which carries with it the obligation to accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not profitable, or indeed possible, to answer the type of hypothetical question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch? Does he agree that all one can hope for is that after the resolution of the present crisis, arms dealing in the Middle East may be controlled by international agreement, which is always difficult to achieve?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly but not only in the Middle East, gives considerable cause for concern to us and to many others. It is a matter to which we are giving a great deal of thought.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with reference to the second supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn about the movements of Mr. Tariq Aziz and in view of the great interest in the matter, will it help the noble Lord if I tell him that the Soviet Union announced about an hour ago that he had not left Baghdad for Moscow, that he was not expected in Moscow tonight and that the Soviet Union had invited him to give the Iraqi response to the Soviet embassy in Baghdad?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the information which the noble Lord has given may well be of interest to the House, but it remains outside the terms of the Question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it may remain outside the terms of the Question but it is nevertheless a matter of such public importance that if the noble Lord has any information he should give it to the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I welcome the reply given by the Minister to my first Question, which is a probing question. I also welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary is already, and rightly, engaging in preparations for the period after the war. However, does the Minister agree that the simple continuation of the non-proliferation treaty as it has been applied so far will not be sufficient to prevent the arming and re-arming of countries in the Middle East and elsewhere? Does he also agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that the only way to prevent that is to introduce a ban or restrictions on the export of arms so that no weapons of mass destruction can again be accumulated in the region and to ensure that those which already exist are destroyed?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the non-proliferation treaty has served us well. No doubt there are flaws in the existing international arrangements but we must make the best use of what we have.

Property Repossessions
3.4 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to prevent repossession of the houses of those who cannot meet their mortgage repayments due to high interest rates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, no. The lender must have security in the event of default. If the law were changed to remove that security, mortgages would cease.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for that compassionate reply, is she aware that already 100,000 families are homeless and that people are being made homeless at the rate of 800 a week? Is she aware that that creates enormous burdens for local authorities which have to try to rehouse some of those people in bed and breakfast accommodation? Is she also aware that many of the houses from which those people have been evicted are still empty? Will the Government consider extending the period for paying back the mortgage and reducing the amount required immediately in order to give those people a chance to stay in the homes which they set out to buy with so much pride?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks whether we will introduce legislation to prevent repossession. Legislation is not required to permit some of the measures which the noble Lord suggested. Those changes can come about within the existing legislation.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that building societies are falling over backwards to avoid repossessing homes and are very happy to reschedule loans? Does she agree that it is very important that borrowers contact building societies as soon as possible and do not leave it until the last moment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point. It is not in the lenders' or anybody's interest that homes should be repossessed. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has produced a code of practice and has appealed to people to get in touch with the lender when they first have difficulties. Local authorities are aware of the code of practice. The Government have made £11 million available to citizens advice bureaux to help counsel people who are in difficulty.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on the building society policy of pursuing borrowers for the difference between the repossession price and the amount that is outstanding?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to what a lender does at the very end of the line after all other avenues have been pursued. If

547
people in difficulties seek advice early a range of measures is available to them: deferring interest; extending the period over which a loan has been taken out; income support relief for people on income support to meet at least half of the interest for the first 16 weeks and all of the interest on a loan thereafter; and, where feasible, advising people to rent out part of the property. At the end of the day, when all else has been considered and where a person whose home has been repossessed is in a position to meet the bill, that bill has to be met by somebody.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness has not replied to the question. I asked her about the people who have been through all those stages and the building society then pursues them for the difference between the repossession price and the amount that is outstanding.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the lender allows someone to borrow money at a rate of interest. If that debt cannot be met and a charge is outstanding on the lender, that money has to be retrieved somehow. If it is from the borrower, then the borrower becomes liable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not one of the morals of the problem that people buying houses should not be encouraged to take out loans larger than they can manage to repay? Have the Government any advice to mortgage lenders in that regard?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is considerable advice along the lines suggested by the noble Lord. Many of those who have borrowed money to buy homes and are now in difficulty—0.47 per cent. of borrowers—have overextended themselves. That very important advice is given to everybody.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Molloy the Minister said that legislation was not required to deal with the situation. Every day 150 owner occupiers have their homes repossessed. Does the Minister understand the devastation felt by those people? They will probably suffer the effects for the rest of their lives. Can the Government give some hope of a scheme to alleviate that suffering and to relieve the terrible burden that those people and their families are expected to bear?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the figures are of concern to the Government. For that reason the issue is being addressed. However, context is important. There are 9.4 million people with mortgages. Of those mortgages 0.47 per cent. are in fact the subject of repossession. That is not commensurate with the figure given by the noble Lord. Only 9 per cent. of all homelessness is due to repossessions, again a figure not commensurate with the one given by the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. The noble Baroness says that my figures are not commensurate with hers. That indicates to me that she considers them inaccurate. They are not inaccurate; they are quite specifically correct. The noble Baroness uses a very small percentage of the global figure as a justification that
548
things are all right. Does she not understand that when the unfortunate people who come within that small percentage lose their home the figure becomes 100 per cent. and not 0.4 per cent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that repossession is a cause of distress to that person. However, a great deal is being done to advise people properly, in particular those who over extend. Only 9 per cent. of homelessness is caused by repossessions. That is the figure that I want to put into perspective. The other figure to keep in perspective is that 98.5 per cent. of people who take out a mortgage are in fact coping.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that building societies are by no means in the forefront of those seeking repossession of properties? Is she further aware that once the keys have been pushed through a building society's door and surrendered, there is very little that the mortgaging company can do? The people have made themselves homeless. Building societies are doing everything in their power by way of counselling, advice and telephone contact to keep people in their homes by whatever method possible. Can the Minister make clear that the worst thing that people in difficulty can do is voluntarily to surrender their keys?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. The worst thing that a person in difficulty can do is surrender the keys. The best thing that they can do is take the earliest possible advice. We know that some people, with all the advice in the world, still seem to get into difficulties. For that reason the Council of Mortgage Lenders has produced a code of practice. We have increased funds to the Citizens Advice Bureaux to help, advise and counsel people in difficulties. Local authorities are also playing a part. I am aware of the work being done by individual building societies. A great deal is being done to help people avoid getting into difficulties in the first place.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will accept that we ought to move on. If we are to limit Question Time to 30 minutes, we must leave some time for the last Question.

The Coal Industry
3.14 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any further proposals for the coal industry.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government have given substantial support to the coal industry over the past 11 years. We have approved over £7 billion of new investment and have also provided for grant aid around £17 billion, including provision of over £6 billion deficiency grant under the Coal Industry Act 1990. It is now up to British Coal's mineworkers and management, working together, to make the best use of this investment to

549
transform the corporation into a competitive and profitable enterprise. As to the future, the Government remain committed to returning the coal industry to the private sector. But no decisions will be taken on the future structure of the industry until after the next general election.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Coal has said for the first time that if cheap coal imports continue many United Kingdom pits will close permanently? Is he further aware that the chairman of National Power has been reported as saying that the company will seek international tenders for all its coal needs as soon as it is privatised? Given that the generating contract with British Coal will end in 1993, that the increase in productivity has been massive—by the way, the Minister did not mention that—and that British pits have reserves that will last for at least another 200 years, is it not time that the Government took action not only to safeguard jobs but to safeguard the security of supply in this country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the coal industry is indeed making good progress, with productivity up over 85 per cent. from pre-strike levels. Further productivity gains are essential. I believe that the industry has the investment, technology and skills to achieve them. It remains the Government's policy not to restrict coal imports. We believe that restricting them will not bring long-term security to the coal industry.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the coal industry has explained to the Government why in many cases it is more economical for a consumer of coal to import it from many thousands of miles away in Australia or South Africa than to buy it in this country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I know that there are discussions at regular intervals and I imagine that that point has been explained.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, with regard to the future of the British coal industry, can the noble Lord tell us what steps the Government will take to restrain National Power and PowerGen from buying coal mines overseas with a view to importing increased tonnage of cheap coal? Secondly, will the Government oppose the proposal that National Power and PowerGen intend to reduce their take of British coal in 1993 from 75 million tonnes to 60 million tonnes, thereby reducing the coal industry by nearly one-third and incurring another 18,000 job losses?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord and to the House. I was not aware of either of those proposals. The coal industry has shrunk at a consistent rate since before the First World War, as much under Labour as under Conservative administrations. I point out the very considerable help given by this Government to mineworkers and mineworkers' communities when pits have closed. That has been done through various avenues.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that among the measures necessary to safeguard the
550
future of coal is the need to ensure that it is burnt as environmentally acceptably as possible and that the clean coal technology can go a long way in that direction? Would he indicate the extent of the support that the Government are giving to the development of this technology?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in the time allowed to me I can say that we are committed to the development of coal technologies. It has not been without its problems. In the current year there has been an exceptional expenditure of £11.3 million, mainly covering the Grimethorpe project. That will return to an annual rate running at about £2.7 million. A coal task force has been set up to examine the longer-term implications. I hope that that will particularly examine collaborative effort since there are such advanced technologies in the United States and elsewhere.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether he has read an article in this week's Economist —a paper which is not normally sympathetic to Her Majesty's Opposition—in which it is said that British Coal managers are fed up with the Energy Department's dithering which has made it almost impossible to draw up a long-term company strategy? Is he aware of that statement in the Economist and would he care to comment on it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that the Economist is necessarily friendly to Her Majesty's Government. I have not read the argument but I shall do so and will comment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the reply given by the noble Lord to my first supplementary question, would he say that there are no circumstances at any time in which the Government would restrict coal imports?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are no plans to do so at the moment.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Annan. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes and as the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of each debate, all other speeches in both short debates should be limited to a maximum of seven minutes.

Medical Injuries: No-Fault System
3.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the case for a no-fault system for medical injuries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I recall being surprised many years ago when I was asked to join the Pearson Royal Commission, which had been set up partly as a result of the thalidomide disaster, to inquire into problems of compensation for personal injury. I

551
should have been absolutely astonished if I had then been told that 18 years later I would be addressing your Lordships' House with some of the problems still unresolved.
On 1st February the other place held a Second Reading debate on Mrs. Barnes's Bill aimed at setting up a no-fault scheme for medical accidents. Today's debate is not about that Bill, defeated as it was by a government majority assembled in considerable numbers on a Friday. Your Lordships' House is discussing a wide-ranging problem of great difficulty, complexity and importance. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. Indeed, the House will have the benefit of a great deal of expertise, if not from the opening speaker.
I understand a medical injury to be the impairment of a person by a physical or mental condition arising in the course of medical care. The impairment may be a foreseeable and acceptable outcome of the necessary treatment. On the other hand, it may be the result of a medical accident, whether or not due to negligence. It is about such mishaps that I am speaking today. If at present things go wrong the patient's remedy is to sue his doctor in tort for damages. In order to win he must prove that on the balance of probabilities the doctor was negligent; that is, that he had failed to act in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.
That raises a number of problems. First, it is not so easy to reconcile the confrontation involved in any such proceedings with the traditional relationship between doctor and patient. The doctor is even in some difficulty in saying that he is sorry for fear of prejudicing legal proceedings. It has been common to experience difficulty in obtaining access to medical records and in finding doctors who are willing to testify against a colleague. The delays can be horrendous. When one reads of a substantial award being made seven or eight years after the event it is worth pausing to reflect on what those long years of waiting might have meant to the families involved.
Secondly, there is the aspect of cost. An individual who does not qualify for legal aid and who is not very rich will think more than once before embarking on a course which, if it fails, can impose an enormous financial burden. From the point of view of the health authority it is not easy to know the total of the sums paid under court orders or out-of-court settlements, the amounts shelled out by authorities in legal fees, and the cost in terms of legal aid, court time and administration.
Some health authorities view with alarm the size of the demands that settlements are likely to make on their resources. The rising insurance premiums payable by doctors for work outside the NHS, as is now the arrangement, are quite a story on their own. There is reason for thinking that some extra expense is caused by defensive medicine; that is, action taken in case there might be legal proceedings and allegations made that not all precautions were taken.
552
It is difficult to obtain hard facts but I hope that we shall hear expert opinion on the matter as the debate proceeds.
It is sometimes argued that proceedings in court achieve the purpose of rubbing in doctors' accountability. But the worst cases are settled out of court. Those disputed in court tend to be the more marginal cases in which there is a reasonable defence.
The final item in this gloomy catalogue is the provision in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 which states that in awarding costs the courts are obliged to ignore the availability of service under the NHS and assume that any medical treatment is private. In the recent debate even the Secretary of State for Health conceded that that was not very satisfactory. Indeed, it would be difficult to find anyone who believes that the present arrangements are totally acceptable although not necessarily going so far as to utter the widely-held view that it is all a rather elaborate lottery in which a few large prizes are awarded after a wait of several years.
It is only fair to say that some improvements are on the way, including the welcome changes flowing from the Civil Justice Review and the Courts and Legal Services Act. Soon new legislation will help with access to hand-written medical records. I understand that the discussions that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is having with the Law Commission—to which the Minister recently referred at Question Time—cover the possibility of looking at structured payments all these years after the Pearson Report.
The Health Minister has talked of discussing the problems of defensive medicine with the presidents of the royal colleges. In the recent debate in the other place he did not reject a suggestion previously made by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths that some kind of arbitration procedure—that is, a tribunal of two doctors and a legal chairman and conducted on paper—might be made available as an alternative to court proceedings.
All of that still assumes that negligence must be proved. In the debate the Secretary of State did not say that the approach to negligence cases suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths was, in his view, only second best and that his preferred course was a no-fault scheme. Other eminent lawyers have come out in favour of such a scheme. So have representative bodies of doctors, obstetricians, gynaecologists—who, incidentally, have their own problems of recruitment—midwives, nurses and consumer organisations. Although there is no unanimity of view about the type of no-fault scheme that should be adopted and how, for example, accountability should be handled, the fact that there is such widespread support for the principle among so many responsible people and organisations suggests that the concept cannot be lightly brushed aside.
After all, "no-fault" is not a novelty in this country, although anyone reading the Commons debate would never guess that. Pearson pointed out that compensation for industrial injuries is, in essence, a no-fault

553
scheme. So are the arrangements for volunteers taking part in clinical trials. So was the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Even now the Lord Chancellor has a working party examining the possibility of a no-fault scheme for minor road traffic accidents. The difference between the award to haemophiliacs and no-fault payments is scarcely visible to the naked eye.
I say straightaway that the Pearson Commission did not include medical accidents among the categories where it believed that "no-fault" should be introduced at that stage. The report kept the issue open and recommended that the Government should watch how the schemes in Sweden and New Zealand (Finland should now be added) worked out in practice. The main reason why the commission came up with its rather wet conclusion—I believe that this chapter is the worst in the report—was that it could not see how to surmount the problem of causation. It believed that it would be as well to see how those other countries overcame the problem.
There can be unlooked for complications after an operation or as a result of the use of drugs. It can be difficult to decide whether such a mishap was indeed foreseeable and acceptable or whether it was an accident in the sense that I have explained. There has been the rather strange history of vaccine damage. Another perplexing example could be deciding whether cerebral palsy was caused at birth or whether it was congenital. It is easy enough to point to the problems and to forecast anomalies, although the argument about anomalies is very dangerous for any defender of the present system to use. Many believe that it would be wrong to abandon the whole concept because in what would after all be a minority of cases, there could be problems on the issue of causation—an issue on which the Scandinavian schemes managed to form judgments.
No one suggests that the right to go to court with claims based on negligence should be abandoned. However, there is much support for the idea of providing in addition an option to go to a tribunal where it would be necessary to prove causation and to show that the outcome was an accident in that it was not foreseeable and acceptable. However, it would not be necessary to prove negligence. Hurdles could be erected to keep out trivial cases and there could be restrictions on the awards. If, as a consequence, awards were not quite as glittering as some court awards, they might be more plentiful and could be given more speedily. It can be argued with some conviction that the overall net cost need not be forbiddingly large.
A tribunal could be on the lines of that suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, for negligence cases or on more elaborate lines as proposed in the Bill of Mrs. Barnes. She drew heavily on the precedent of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the debate the Health Minister kept arguing that that was not much of an analogy since the board dealt only in small awards of £2,000 to £3,000. He said that several times. In fact —I have sent a note to the Secretary of State—it assesses cases on the basis of common law damages
554
subject to a limit on the allowance of earnings and the full deduction of social security payments. Last year it made one award of £768,512 and another of £834,703.
For my part I do not claim to know the answer to some of the problems and today I do not put forward any hard and fast scheme. Indeed, in the time available it is possible to touch on only some of the issues. For example, I can do no more than mention one possible further complication; that is, a draft. EC directive seeking to reverse the burden of proof where there is an allegation of fault against the supplier of a service. However, this is not a subject that will simply go away. I ask the Government to take seriously the widely held anxieties and to put in hand, by whatever committee of inquiry seems to them best, although not one limited to lawyers or doctors, a detailed investigation into the pros and cons and the possibility of arriving at a solution for the problems which we all know exist and which cause widespread confusion and disap-pointment to doctors and patients alike. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who today has rendered a signal service not only to your Lordships' House but also to the country. The noble Lord proposes the introduction of a new dimension of social justice—no more and no less. He takes a non-political stance, although political decisions would be required to carry into effect his proposals, whatever their form. However, as the noble Lord says, the problem will never go away.
This is as an option to litigation for medical negligence in the courts of our country. Under the noble Lord's broad proposals, compensation may be awarded only if the medical treatment or advice caused the injury. The measure of compensation will be established on accepted common law principles, albeit with some discount as negligence is not in issue. The scheme covers only medical situations and is strictly limited in that regard. It is not concerned with product liability and makes no changes whatever to substantive law. It bears scant resemblance, if any, to the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill which failed to have a Second Reading in another place earlier this month. I could never have supported that Bill for many reasons given in another place.
If the serious attention of Parliament is to be attracted to reforms, it is of no avail whatever to hoist a no-fault flag and beat the NHS drum. The problem is complex and difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, acknowledged. One can but rely upon the gentle art of persuasion and offer proposed means of implementation for the critical examination of, and objective discussion by, your Lordships.
To that end, this tentative contribution, as indeed it must be having regard to the distinguished list of speakers who are to follow, is arranged under four headings. I shall probably not have time to deal with the last of them in the seven minutes available. The first is the justification for reform; the second is the

555
means of operation; the third is causation; and the fourth is the relationship between the scheme and the courts.
As to the grounds of justification, the legal complexities of a medical negligence action inhibit any reasonable prospect of obtaining compensation by the vast majority of those who have suffered from such injury. A barrier exists which precludes success or argument as to the state of the medical art. If the treatment or advice was given in accordance with—and I underline this—any respectable body of medical opinion, that can kill it, as can the contention of those who gave the treatment that the drug or product used in the treatment which caused the injury was used without negligence.
The second ground of justification is the fear of a medical negligence action which has led to defensive medicine; namely, reluctance to take the sensible and appropriate risks to the detriment of the patient; and the resort to over elaborate precautionary methods to avoid that risk at the cost of NHS and private patients. Thirdly, the heavy cost, the uncertainty, and the delays of two to five years involved in these High Court actions, usually supported by legal aid, are totally unacceptable. Fourthly, there is the mounting burden of professional insurance premiums which add assuredly in the USA and in this country, one-third to the cost of medical treatment. The cost of the provision of those medical services is increased either to private patients or to the NHS to that extent. That is wholly unacceptable.
Lastly, the sense of overweaning injustice and frustration on the part of those injured by medical treatment must be recognised by any government of this country sooner or later. Something has to be done. The question is what.
I have spoken for my seven minutes. There is no more that I can usefully say to your Lordships.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject.
The present tort-based system of compensation for the victims of medical injury is harmful, unpredictable and unjust. Similar needs receive dissimilar treatment. A no-fault compensation scheme would relieve the patient of the necessity of lengthy and expensive legal cases, and base compensation principally upon the injured person's needs.
The emphasis of such a scheme should be on reimbursement of identifiable financial loss or of expenses as a result of a medical mishap, together with reasonable recognition of unnecessary pain and suffering. Instead of those few individuals who are able to establish that the care they had received had been negligent being awarded very large sums of compensation, a no-fault compensation scheme would offer a choice to the individual.
Patients suffering unforeseen injury during their medical care would be compensated reasonably for a
556
damage that they have endured and, where appropriate, dependants compensated for financial loss. It is important to remember that there are a large number of medical accidents where nobody is at fault. The current legal system is slow and expensive, with average delays of four years and some of seven years. In the case of children damaged at birth 20 years is the time allowed for the legal process to begin.
For those patients not eligible for legal aid, the risk of serious financial damage if the action is unsuccessful compels them to abandon all hope of compensation and not to proceed with the claim. Even if they proceed, the amount is a lottery. Even when the case is proven and damages awarded, a high proportion of the damages will be absorbed by legal costs.
The present system destroys the proper relationship between the doctor and the patient by introducing a confrontational element. That encourages conceal-ment and lack of frankness on the part of the doctor, just when it is most undesirable. It is the sincere hope of the medical profession that whatever other benefits might result from a no-fault scheme, the absence of the threat of litigation would ensure much greater openness in explaining to the patient the nature and cause of any mishap, encouraging accountability by the doctors to the patients who are, after all, the people most entitled to require it.
I would not wish such a scheme to protect professional staff if errors have been made. Those patients wishing to prove professional negligence should always have the route through the courts open to them. The present fault-based system does not give accountability. The greater the degree of incompetence or plain negligence, the more certain it is that the case will be settled out of court, saving the doctor from any adverse publicity.
As the health authorities pay the indemnity for hospital doctors, an individual working in an NHS hospital suffers no financial penalty in either legal costs or damages. The medical profession takes that very seriously and is involved with considering how best to deal more effectively with incompetent doctors. The BMA has worked with the Government to introduce compulsory medical audit and the General Medical Council is actively looking at the issue and considering new disciplinary measures.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the new directive of the European Commission. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views. However, the proposals do not seem to resolve the delay, expense, uncertainty and disruption caused by a fault-based compensation scheme. I hope that the Government will listen to the professional organisations and the consumers, and will consider seriously the proposals put forward for a no-fault compensation scheme.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his initiative in arranging for us to debate this issue, which I believe requires urgent attention.
I accept many of the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State in recommending that the Private Member's Bill recently introduced in another place should be opposed. Nevertheless the problem is one which cannot, and must not, be brushed aside. Since the report of the Pearson Royal Commission in March 1978, the position relating to claims alleging damage through medical acts or omissions has become increasingly serious.
I commend to your Lordships four important documents. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have each produced cogent reports recommending the introduction of a no-fault compensation system. The Royal Society of Medicine hosted a conference in 1989 and the proceedings of that meeting, organised jointly with the BMA, were published. A copy of that comprehensive book is now in the House Library.
Perhaps I may also commend a research note entitled Compensation for Medical Accidents—is 'no-fault' a better way?, published by the House of Commons Library Research Division under the authorship of Keith Cunninghame and Helena Jeffs in January of this year.
In the UK, claims under common law alleging medical negligence are still guided by the judgment of Mr. Justice McNair in the case of Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee in 1957 in which he said, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, pointed out,
"A doctor … is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art"
Medical negligence is part of the wider tort of negligence. But the present operation of the system is exceptionally slow, expensive and depressing to both sides and does not always operate fairly. Some have suggested that the existing system assures medical accountability. That is clearly not the case. Most cases in which negligence has plainly occurred are now settled out of court and are not followed by action which would be likely to influence the practice of the offending doctor. Admittedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, pointed out, the GMC is now discussing whether to introduce a system of performance review followed by remedial action in the case of doctors whose standards of practice have fallen below an acceptable level. But that action is no part of the present legal system, although it could be facilitated under a no-fault compensation scheme.
There are many cases where damage, including irreversible brain damage, has occurred through medical accidents where no question of negligence arises and in which there is therefore no prospect of compensation. As has been pointed out, it is also important to note that many actions in which negligence is alleged, now pursued in the civil courts,
558
are legally aided; and many injured individuals whose income exceeds the threshold allowed under the legal aid system are deterred from pursuing claims for financial reasons.
In Britain the claims received by the medical defence organisations, which until recently insured all doctors, doubled between 1984 and 1987. Until Crown indemnity for doctors working in the NHS was introduced, annual subscriptions to those organisations rose from £40 per annum in 1978 to £1,350 in 1989. A specific area of concern relates to accidents at birth and suits against obstetricians. Those have been facilitated by a change in the legal aid rules which mean that a child can now obtain legal aid on the basis of its own income and not that of its parents. Recently Sir Donald Acheson estimated that, whereas the number of such cases grew from 50 in 1983 to 200 in 1989, the figure is now likely to rise to around 600 a year, many resulting in large settlements which, under Crown indemnity, will fall to be paid by NHS health authorities with a consequential reduction in the income which can be devoted to patient services.
A side effect of that problem has been a fall in the recruitment of young doctors into obstetrics and gynaecology. Some feel that the Bolam principle may have been stretched to the limit in dealing with some such claims, not surprisingly perhaps in the light of the tragic consequences of perinatal brain injury. Fortunately we have not yet reached the appalling situation which at present exists in many parts of the United States of America where defensive medicine has become the rule. So-called malpractice insurance there costs many doctors in surgical and obstetric specialities in excess of 50,000 dollars a year and, because of the danger of malpractice claims, many refuse to carry out certain procedures which, though usually beneficial, carry a significant risk. Fortunately we have not yet reached the situation here which exists in America where a doctor may drive around with a sticker on his car saying,
"Support a lawyer—send your son to medical school".
The Royal College of Physicians and the BMA suggested that to institute a system of no-fault compensation would relieve the patient of the necessity of proving fault and would base compensation principally upon the injured person's needs. They believe that it would lead to the rapid resolution of claims much more than under the present tort-based procedures. As was pointed out, the present situation tends to destroy the doctor/patient relationship. A no-fault system would have the advantage of making compensation available to those individuals suffering damage as a result of totally unpredictable medical accidents.
The Government have already made ex gratia payments for no-fault compensation in the case of infants suffering brain damage through vaccination against whooping cough, and more recently in the case of those unfortunate individuals developing AIDS through the use of factor 8 concentrate in the treatment of haemophilia. Reference was made to the

559
EC draft directive which, if introduced, would compensate for defective services; the plaintiff would then be relieved of the obligations to prove negligence.
As others have said, I believe that the Government should now establish a high level committee with appropriate medical, legal and lay representation to examine the present system and its major deficiencies and to make recommendations.
3.55 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the increase in medical litigation in this country has led to the fear that we may be heading towards the unfortunate American legal system. However, it should be pointed out that the American legal system is quite different in having contingency fees, which allow lawyers to make no charge if they lose the case but to take as much as half the award if they win. I believe that that system was invented by the British around 300 years ago. About 100 years later they saw the error of their ways and outlawed the practice. However, before the reform could be effected, the American colonies had gone off on their own and found themselves lumbered with the contingency fee system from which they are unable to escape. The danger of this country following the American legal road is remote.
It has also been argued that if the present increase in litigation continues doctors will practice defensive medicine. My impression is that there was more defensive medicine in the 1950s than exists today. As students we were taught that we had to X-ray a patient's head if there was any question of that patient having suffered a head injury, as there had been a judgment in the early 1950s which gave rise to the impression that it was negligent not to have an X-ray under those circumstances but not negligent to miss a fracture even if it was clearly visible on the X-ray. As a result of that curious state of affairs, millions of skull X-rays were taken quite unnecessarily. In the past few years that practice has been discontinued. In one's teaching of medical students today one concentrates on the importance of practising good medicine with courtesy, openness, effective communication and believing in the old adage that the customer is always right.
There are many disadvantages in having a no-fault system. First, it will lead to more hassle for all concerned. In addition, after the compensation has been agreed the patient will be free to sue in the courts. Secondly, it will exclude equally handicapped children who are born with some congenital defect. Thirdly, it is illogical to have such a compensation scheme in medicine and not in other walks of life. However, there is one place where such a no-fault compensation scheme might be appropriate, and that is in regard to injuries resulting from road traffic accidents where it is notoriously difficult to assess who is to blame. Fourthly, separating negligence from the scene would still leave the patient with the difficulty of establishing causation, and establishing causation may be just as difficult as establishing negligence. Fifthly, it would create yet another layer of suffocating bureaucracy with which we could well do without.
560
We should try to improve the present position. A large number of medical negligence cases are preventable. The wrong part is still being removed. X-rays are being labelled right and left the wrong way round. These are all preventable lesions. Every operation site should be marked with an indelible pen with the name of the operation. That practice has never given rise to any problem except on one occasion where the surgeon expected to carry out a hernia operation. Unfortunately the patient had had tattooed across his neck a dotted line with the words, "Cut here". Happily, he recognised that the handwriting was different!
Some believe that giving too much explanation of what may go wrong before an operation may put the patient off. However, nowadays we regard that as too patronising. We have to be much more open and put the patient completely in the picture. The delays in the legal world have been unduly prolonged and ways are being found to speed that up. Making access to medical records easier has been an important contribution in this field. It would be easier still if patients were allowed to keep their own records.
Lastly, serious consideration might be given, where appropriate, to making yearly payments in negligence cases instead of a huge lump sum. I understand that during the past 10 to 15 years the courts have been able to make an interim award, with a review some time later where the prognosis is in doubt. It might be useful to extend that practice to inflation-proof yearly payments. As usual, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate. I am sure that it is shedding more light on this vexed problem. But I fear that a no-fault system for medical injuries would make matters worse than they are at present.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and for the sake of clarification, perhaps I may ask him whether he accepts that the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would not allow for two bites at the cherry, so to speak? One has to elect whether to operate under the scheme proposed or under the courts. Again, in order to save confusion and a waste of time in this debate, will my noble friend accept that the principles of causation will be those which operate in the courts at present? They would present no difficulties. Does he also accept that the only excision of complexity would be the problem of establishing negligence? I ask those questions to avoid confusion.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, if things were that simple there would not be the problem that we have today.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, when the other place debated Mrs. Barnes's Bill, the debate concentrated on her specific proposals. While vigorously opposing her Bill, the Secretary of State acknowledged that few people in the debate had:
"been willing to say that the operation of the law is satisfactory in respect of medical negligence cases and the definition of who is responsible for what at present".
He added:

561
"I count myself among that consensus"—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/91; col. 1260.]
Later he said that he agreed:
"that, in many respects, the present arrangements are perceived as unfair. There is a basic perception that such compensation claims are a lottery".—[col. 1261.]
He avoided saying what the Government proposed doing about it, and contented himself with attacking Mrs. Barnes's Bill and with a disquisition on how he claimed that court proceedings are being streamlined and speeded up.
The basic question is one of principle; it is nothing to do with court procedures. It is whether a patient whose medical treatment goes badly wrong should have to prove that the doctors were negligent in order to recover any compensation. The courts have made it extremely difficult for patients to win against doctors. I do not need to align myself with the cynic's view that here we have one profession, the lawyers, or, more accurately, the judges, laying down the law in order to protect the medical profession. It is sufficient to say that the case for a system of no-fault compensation is the greater if the law is in fact so weighted in favour of the medical profession that very few victims of medical injury can recover when things have gone badly wrong. The vast majority who suffer medical injury go uncompensated. The proportion of successful claims is far and away lower than for all negligence cases.
The courts allow the medical profession to set its own standard of care. They decline to choose between rival bodies of medical opinion. A doctor is not negligent, as has been said, if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, even if another body of medical opinion takes precisely the opposite view. The courts have given many reasons for declining to lay down a higher standard of care; that it would increase the likelihood of litigation and so destroy the trust which is the basis of the relationship between doctor and patient; that it would lead to practitioners avoiding taking risks that may be necessary for the patient's benefit; that it could lead to doctors refusing to treat patients; that it could create a disincentive to innovate; that it could increase litigation and so increase the cost of the provision of medical services; that it could lead to fewer people entering the profession; and that it would be unnecessary anyway because of the high professional standards current among medical practitioners.
Your Lordships may assess the judicial approach from two short quotations from two of the judgments of the Court of Appeal in a leading case in 1980. The first judgment states:
"If medical men are to be found liable whenever they do not effect a cure, or whenever anything untoward happens, it would do a great disservice to the profession itself, Not only to the profession but to society at large, Take heed of what has happened in the United States. Medical malpractice cases there are very worrying, especially as they are tried by juries who have sympathy for the patient and none for the doctor who is insured. The damages are colossal. The doctors insure, but the premiums become very high and these have to be passed on in fees to the patients. Experienced practitioners are known to have refused patients for fear of being accused of negligence. Young men"—
there is no mention of young women—
562
"are even deterred from entering the profession because of the risks involved. In the interests of all, we must avoid such consequences in England".
The second judgment held that a higher standard of proof should apply than in other civil cases because of the gravity of a negligence allegation against a professional man. The judgment says:
"The Defendant's professional reputation is under attack. A finding of negligence against him may jeopardise his career and cause him substantial financial loss over many years … the public interest is put at risk".
A similar solicitude for the medical profession runs through the decision of the courts on the need for the patient's consent to surgical procedures. In the United States the prevailing doctrine is that consent must be an informed consent. I emphasise "informed". Every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what is to be done with his own body. True consent to what happens to oneself requires an informed exercise of choice. That in turn requires the doctor to inform the patient of the options, and the risks accompanying each option.
That doctrine is rejected here. If English jurisprudence has a doctrine it is that the "doctor knows best". The same principle as applies to diagnosis and treatment applies to warning the patient of risks inherent in treatment that the doctor recommends. The doctor need give no more information than would accord with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion.
What this comes down to is that the judiciary allows the medical profession to set the standards by which the medical profession is to be judged. The Secretary of State has himself acknowledged that the existing state of the law is unsatisfactory, He was adamant that Mrs. Barnes's Bill was not the way forward. This debate gives the Government the opportunity to inform your Lordships' House what the Government believe is the way forward.
The Government responded to the haemophiliacs cause because of public pressure on behalf of a sympathetic case. But all cases where medical treatment goes badly wrong are sympathetic cases. The Government were playing politics by responding to a popular case. They were not addressing principle. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will address principle when she replies to this debate and that that will be the reward which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, deserves for bringing this important subject before the house.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, not only in a general sense for introducing this debate but particularly because he referred to, but did not expand on, the subject of defensive medicine. It is difficult to attack the idea that is held in the minds of some that defensive medicine is inevitable and that it is widely spread. I do not wish to suggest that for a moment. I do not think there is any firm evidence to suggest it, but the possibility is extremely clear. If I give one or two examples perhaps I may be able to convince the House.

563
The expenditure of time that is so important in all medical matters—time representing money in a big way as well as goodwill—is very great. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to X-rays. Unnecessary defensive X-rays cost the patient's time. They cost many people's time. They cost perhaps a surplus amount of irradiation for the patient. It takes time to visit the laboratories to have tests done which may have to be repeated and confirmed. Again, time for all concerned. The keeping of extensive and carefully edited notes so that they can stand up to critical scrutiny rather than serve as a help to the doctor or his colleagues on referral; that takes time. Referral itself takes up a very great deal of time. There is therefore the possibility that in defensive medicine one will in the future see patients' essential needs being treated, with the doctor looking over his shoulder to some extent rather than looking straight at the patient's face.
There is already an alarming situation that could be called evasive medicine rather than defensive medicine. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who mentioned obstetricians. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Mr. Stanley Simmons, is a man of enormous professional experience and expertise. Furthermore, he is a man who has been concerned with medical matters at national level for many years. He is a man of strong and tough mind. He is deeply concerned about the future of his particular branch of the medical profession. He tells me—and this has already been referred to—that not only is recruitment diminishing but, disturbingly, early retirement is developing among those engaged in obstetric practice. His college has been foremost in developing medical audit. It is going forward well at the present time. Having applied those principles to examining the performance of its own fellows and members, he can declare that standards have never been higher, that they are ever ascending and that, as they ascend, the number of complaints and the number of cases involving action for compensation has increased. It seems therefore that those concerned are in a trap and they are beginning to think of opting out of it.
Perhaps an illustration might relieve the anxiety that some people are feeling. The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, gave an eponymous lecture at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. His subject was "Is the specialty doomed?". If the answer is yes, how would those young spouses feel; how would parents feel; how would grandparents feel? Looking around this House, I cannot believe that any except myself are great-grandparents. Nevertheless, how would great-grandparents feel? The answer must be that that specialty will continue to endure and will be supported by every effort to reap the fruits of its own expertise, which is ever increasing for the benefit of all and which we in this House hold to be so very important.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, confined his Motion to medical injuries just in the same way as, not very long ago, the noble Lord had a Motion in similar terms, but confined it to road accident injuries. It may be that the noble Lord in his wisdom considers that one's chances of success are greater if one does not try to get everything all at once. However, the problem about proceeding with any matter piecemeal is that, if one succeeds, at the moment of success one creates anomalies. I hope that the noble Lord does succeed and that the anomalies will be pointed out. I hope that people will shout from the house tops, "What about the unfortunate people whose injuries were not medical injuries? Why do they not get the special compensation that is promised for the victims of medical injury?". I am bound to say that I should like to see compensation for these injuries becoming a first charge upon the welfare state. It is a good Christian principle that we should attempt to share one another's misfortunes.
In and after World War II we had, as many noble Lords will remember, the war damage compensation scheme. If one's property was destroyed or damaged one had a claim upon the public purse for compensation. Surely physical injury is more important than damage to property! I should like to think that what can be done in respect of damage to property in war time can surely be done in a wealthy nation in respect of personal injury in peace time. I am not suggesting any more than the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that the law of tort should cease to apply in these personal injury cases. Where there is fault of course let the case be fought. Let the Secretary of State be standing behind the litigant in the same way as at present the insurance company stands behind the litigant. Any damages recoverable could be paid by the Secretary of State into the National Insurance Fund and thereby reduce the charge upon the public purse for making good all the compensations.
Numerous problems arise in regard to the question of compensation itself, the amount, its calculation and the method of payment. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the case of Kelly v. Dawes which was tried in July 1989 in the Queen's Bench Division. The learned judge, Mr. Justice Potter, went into the difficult question of compensation and set out all the problems and the means of overcoming them. I had hoped to go into this question in some detail, but just as Cecil Rhodes said on a famous occasion, "So much to do but so little time", I have to say, "So much to say but so little time". I refer your Lordships to Mr. Justice Potter who said it all much better than I could have myself.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing a vitally important debate. We are all looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

565
As has been said, in the United States it seems that the image of the dedicated and hard-working physician toiling long hours for the good of his patients has been replaced by hardened attitudes of patients, many of whom have had less than optimal interactions with their physicians and unrealistic expectations of what modern medicine can accomplish. Physicians are also keenly aware that their patients often fail to recognise that the average physician in the United States still works 2,500 to 3,500 hours per year, much of it stressful, rather than the standard 40 hours a week which amounts to 2,000 hours per year. Is something of the same happening here?
The Motion mentions medical injuries, but there are two legal aspects of this. One is failure to treat or negligent treatment and the other is failure to warn. Because of the difficulties which I shall mention, many people are of the considered view that there should be a no-fault system for medical injuries. We have heard eloquent arguments in that regard. There are many reasons for this, ranging from failure to warn to failure of treatment. As I have indicated, other factors contribute to the disaffection of physicians and patients. An important one is the demands for documentation and justification of expenditure, which is very clearly indicated in the new medical contract. It is a substantial burden. Another is the increase in professional liability insurance. These must be taken together with the changing status of the physician and the confusing picture of the law.
I should like to confine my remarks to considering in more detail the failure to warn patients. The recent decision of Lord Caplan in Moyes v. Lothian Health Board is one of the few "failure to warn" cases reported in this country. The patient, Mrs. Moyes, suffered pain down the left side of her face and it was feared that she might have vascular disease. She had the diagnostic procedure known as an angiogram carried out and she suffered a stroke. Mrs. Moyes sued the Lothian Health Board on the basis that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee doctors. The substance of her action was that the doctors had failed to warn her of the risks of stroke inherent in this procedure.
The decision of the House of Lords in the Sidaway case in 1985 as to the extent of a doctor's legal duty to warn a patient of risks inherent in a medical procedure is confusing and no clear rule emerged from a deeply divided court. Lord Caplan stated that Sidaway had not changed the law so that the duty of a doctor in "warning" cases was to be determined on the basis of expert evidence of professional practice, as stated in the well known case of Bolam. Lord Caplan subsequently accepted this proposition. He reconciled the different approaches by stating that,
"where the skill or knowledge, or specialist experience of the doctor is a material factor, standards will be regulated by the standards of responsible members of the profession".
He added that the court should not take too narrow a view of the,
"ambit of medical expertise—the doctor's skill in handling his patient may be as much a product of his clinical experience as diagnosis or the prescription of medicine".
566
Only if the doctor has failed to take "reasonable care for the safety of his patient" will professional practice not be determinative, as, for example, where a doctor fails to warn of a "decidedly substantial risk" so that "the patient's safety is obviously imperilled".
On the facts in the Moyes case, the very small risk of stroke would not have satisfied this and so it would not have been negligent of the medical profession to fail to warn Mrs. Moyes. I am advised that confusion reigns—we have heard much of it tonight—and that there are controversial legal views, to some of which I have referred, which the Law Lords might some time address. Perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College for some of the information contained in my speech.
Perhaps I may summarise the reasons why there should be a no-fault system of medical injuries and accidents and failure to warn. The law is confused. The experience in America of litigation is frightening in the extreme. Professional liability insurance is increasing rapidly. Such a situation can only tend to contribute to the patient/doctor conflict, and yet there is no doubt that patients should be compensated for accidents, including failure to inform if this can be accurately found.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for initiating this debate. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, with humility. I bring neither legal nor medical expertise to this debate but deep feelings and some personal experience. I do not believe that I have heard a single noble Lord defending in an unqualified way the status quo. I do not believe that it is possible for anyone in this country who has suffered a medical injury less than death or the life of vegetable to be sure of succeeding in a case of medical injury.
One of my daughters was a patient who received such an injury. She practically lost her life. She spent three months in hospital, in great pain, and suffered a number of operations. Neither my late husband nor myself were without influence—I was at the time a Member of another place—nor without resources to pursue the case. However, in the end it proved impossible for us to do so. My daughter did not particularly want to pursue the case because she did not feel that the financial aspects were important. My late husband was anxious to pursue it because he felt that in airing the case it would prevent the same error being made again. I shall return to that point in a moment.
In the event we were unable to pursue the case because the brilliant consultants who helped to save my daughter's life were reluctant to come to court to give evidence against their colleagues—and who wants to pursue a case in which the witnesses are reluctant?
In my constituency experience as a Member of Parliament for Gloucester, your Lordships can imagine the hopelessness with which I approached the task of trying to help my constituents with similar experiences. One of them certainly suffered for the rest

567
of her life, disabled and in pain as a result of the maladministration of an epidural anaesthetic, and she got no recompense whatsoever.
Having said that, I should not want to see no-fault compensation put forward as a remedy for what is an intolerable situation. I would be fearful of the American experience. I do not think that it would help those patients who are unable to pursue their cases successfully today simply to fatten the bank accounts of insurance companies and lawyers and to pass on to the health service vast costs even where the cases are legitimate ones. Those vast sums of money would deprive other patients in the long term of treatment they have every right to expect as resources are not unlimited.
Therefore I hope and pray that a middle course can be found. Certainly the present situation is intolerable. I hope and pray that wiser heads than mine can come together to find such a way so that those who have suffered physically are not, on top of that, made to suffer delay, anxiety and, in the end, despair.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I put down my name to speak in this very important debate because it seemed to me that there should be some voice, however weak, from those who occupy the judicial Benches in your Lordships' House. In saying that I certainly do not profess to represent the legal establishment and I am quite certain that my noble and learned friends, by my side or elsewhere, will not agree with everything I shall say. Nevertheless, there is a contribution which one can make.
The basis for a modern approach to this subject, I suggest, starts from the remarkable statement made by Mr. Justice Ognall in the haemophiliac case. That case, your Lordships will remember, concerned actions brought by many hundreds of people based on negligence which, on every ground of merit and humanity, seemed extremely strong. Nevertheless, the learned judge at the beginning of the trial felt it necessary and right to warn the parties and their legal advisers that in so far as their case was based on negligence it was exposed to very considerable difficulties.
We know what happened. The Government dealt with the matter on another basis and paid compensation. It has been said that that was a political decision; I do not believe that to be so at all. I believe the Government paid the money because they recognised that negligence was not the right basis on which to deal with this sort of case. A wider basis—what, for the moment, I shall call the humanitarian basis—is the right one.
It was said that the haemophiliac case was unique. So it was. Every terrible case of medical misfortune is unique. But there will undoubtedly be other cases of the same kind. A case in India involving what was called a medical mishap resulted in a very severe ophthalmic infection leading to blindness from which a number of people suffered. The case went to the
568
supreme court of India—a legal body, I would remind your Lordships—which said that the sufferers should be compensated fully on humanitarian grounds.
One is able to see the difference between that approach and one based on negligence if one considers the argument we have heard today. It is said that if we open the door now to "no-fault" in medical cases we would have to do it all over the field. That is welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but not very welcome to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I saw the noble Baroness nodding with approval when the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was putting his arguments. That seems to indicate that the Government are taking the line, as they have before, that to open the door is to open the floodgates, with the consequent need to act all over the field. It is important to say that there is a very wide gulf in principle between medical cases, and possibly others with which we are not concerned today, and fault cases, based on negligence. That is the distinction between private law and public law.
Private law deals with a system which enables individuals who have suffered from a breach of duty on the part of other individuals to sue those latter individuals and recover damages. That is the private law system which governs road accidents and many other cases based on fault which lead to actions in negligence. Public law is a totally different matter. It arises where the state or a public body is entrusted by Parliament with the duty to carry out certain duties and fails to do so or does so imperfectly. That failure gives rise to a range of special remedies: judicial review, injunctions, compensation and, in some cases possibly, although it is a doubtful area, to damages.
It is vital to recognise that the National Health Service has clearly and completely passed into the public law area. The state has assumed responsibility for providing to everybody who asks for it, and free, a system of prevention and cure. There is no contract between the patient and the National Health Service: it is a system provided by the state. Therefore one has to ask whether it is right or appropriate in any way that claims in relation to failure to fulfil administrative duties should be based only on negligence. Mr. Justice Ognall—I should like to quote much more but there is not time—said:
"A government which takes upon itself the role of public provider of medical advice and clinical services is in a very different position from any commercial organisation. It is clearly arguable that its duty to innocent citizens who suffer injury under the aegis of such treatment has a moral dimension to it which should distinguish its assessment of its position from the criteria to be adopted by other defendants of a corporate character".
I believe that to be a perfectly sound principle and the principle upon which the Government acted quite rightly in the haemophiliac cases. It is one which has been recognised in other cases—the vaccine cases, which have been given as an example, and others. It is a question of putting right what has gone wrong. In other words, compensation is part of the service provided, part of the national service of putting right what has gone wrong. And the cost of doing so is part of the cost of the service. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that far from negligence being the right way

569
to deal with these cases, it is the wrong way. I am not dealing with whether or not it may be invoked in addition. However, the proper and best way of dealing with these cases is by recognising moral, administrative and humanitarian obligations on the part of the state to compensate for what has gone wrong.
If the test is not to be negligence, it must be a case of putting right a medical mishap in the best way possible. Something has gone wrong which should not have gone wrong and has caused the injury of which the person complains. It should not be past the wit of man, in this House or outside, to devise a formula to meet that case. The Swedish scheme —and perhaps the noble Baroness will be speaking about it that in due ccurse—does that; perhaps too severely. But it does so, and I believe that the Finnish scheme does so too. Surely in this day and age we should now be putting our hands to that instead of embarking on and arguments about negligence, contributory negligence, and so on. I believe that the haemophiliac decision was right and that the principle ought to be extended. Therefore, "no-fault" is not only practically best. It is, in principle, the best way of dealing with these cases.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, stated that he was looking forward to hearing expert opinions of other noble Lords. I cannot offer any expertise on this subject. I find myself in that situation for the second time this week. On Monday I had the temerity to speak in the debate about horse racing that was introduced by my noble friend, Lord Donoughue. I had the audacity to address your Lordships, as an ordinary punter who occasionally liked a flutter, among a plethora of other speakers who are members of the Jockey Club, owners of racehorses or race tracks, and so on. I hope that noble Lords will excuse any infelicity on the subject.
At the age of 16 I was taking my Higher Certificate (as it then was) when I became ill. I did not complete the examinations and I did not attain the qualification. The entire course of my life was changed by that accident. It never occurred to me to blame anybody or to examine the matter in great detail. When asked about it, I stated that I had had bad luck. I consider that I am extremely lucky to have been born and enjoyed the experience of life on this globe and to have reached the age that I have—I will not qualify that in any way out of deference to your Lordships. There are certain risks in life that are inherent in the mere fact of existing. One cannot protect against those risks completely.
I refer to one comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. He remarked on a Government majority that was assembled on a Friday. That statement sounded pejorative but I must tell noble Lords that, as a former government chief whip in another place, I liked to have a government majority assembled whatever day of the week it was. Not too much should be made of that point.
During my life I have always believed that those of us who may be blessed with abilities or intellect that are average, or above average, have a grave and
570
serious duty to think of those in society who are not so well off. Having listened to noble Lords today I wonder where society is going. If the tenor of the debate is taken to its ultimate, matters will bear very heavily upon the handicapped people in society.
One of my few contributions towards public life in this country was to move a resolution in my local ward of Bristol West Labour Party that mentally handicapped children should be taken into the education system instead of the health system. That resolution was adopted as party policy by the Labour government who introduced the Mentally Handicapped Children Bill. The Bill fell when Labour lost office in 1970. However, I was elected to the other place in 1970 and the Bill was picked up by the Conservative Government and proceeded with, and I made my maiden speech in relation to the Bill. It was based on the idea that no child is ineducable.
To proceed along the lines that have been mentioned this afternoon would be to turn back the clock. A subtle change would be introduced into our attitude towards handicapped children, particularly mentally handicapped children. If a child has cerebral palsy, neighbours will say of the parents, "It is very unfortunate about the child but no doubt the parents received a substantial amount in compensation. Oh, they did not? Oh, really!" A very unfortunate attitude will develop.
Those of us who have our wits about us, to some extent at any rate, should think very carefully about that matter because those who cannot defend themselves have a great call on those of us who are better placed. There is a rising expectation in society which goes beyond all reason. We are lucky to live in a country with rapid industrial development and the wealth that that generates. By far the largest proportion of the world's population is not in our situation, and those people are suffering from diseases which have long been wiped out in developed countries.
Certain burdens will be placed upon professional people if we go down this road. Every decision will have to be looked at and busy doctors and dentists and other professional people will have to make many decisions in the course of a day under great pressure. Those burdens that will be placed upon them and the queries that will be raised in relation to the great advances in medical techniques, could outweigh any possible benefits or lectures which could be given to civil liberties groups about another great advance.
At the other end of the corridor recently there was a fast for 27 million people who are now facing starvation in East Africa because of the drought in the Sahel. Let us turn our attention to preventable diseases in other parts of the world. Let us give more thought to how handicapped people in society are regarded and let us not become too intellectual in our approach to the problems of society.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for introducing the debate. Some remarks have touched me deeply. There was the contribution of the noble

571
Lord, Lord Cocks. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lord Walton of Detchant, will agree when I say that we are always trying to remind our medical students of the terrible circumstances in many parts of the world, and asking them to keep matters in perspective.
There is no doubt in many medical minds that things can go wrong. The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, in relation to her experience and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, add to my feeling that we must continue to debate this subject and find a resolution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, may have put his finger on a very important point. He stated that if the matter is under the aegis of the National Health Service, which is a national institution, one set of rules may obtain, and that if it is under the aegis of an individual, the American system may evolve. I hope that that situation will not arise. We will not be able to resolve this important and serious problem today but I urge noble Lords to continue to think and talk about it.
The report by the Royal College of Physicians on compensation for no fault sets out the main reasons for arriving at the conclusion that we must continue to discuss the matter. In relation to inequity to the plaintiff, large and sometimes smaller amounts of compensation are awarded for the same problem. Delay is an extremely serious matter for the patient or the family when the question of compensation arises due to some fault. The report recognises that the quality of representation is variable. In some cases, the solicitor who is approached by the family may be very good at cases that involve compensation. To other solicitors such matters may be mysterious.
A problem arises in relation to lump sum awards. I am very taken by the idea of annual payments or some kind of slow payment so that the football pools win problem, which may be advantageous to the financial advisory industry and the stockbroking profession but not to the families involved, does not arise. I was once told by a stockbroker at a luncheon held at a hospital that most of the fortunes with which he was dealing, at any rate in London, came from very modest industrial compensation settlements before World War One. He was very pleased to indicate to me how well he had taken care of those funds. He had improved them and made them grow.
The question of cost must also be considered. If we go for a no-fault system, how will it work out cost-wise? There are inhibitions and impediments to going ahead as proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, concluded his remarks by saying that something must be done in the matter. Of course, something has been tried; for example, in Sweden and also in Finland. The latter country not only has the medical accident no-fault approach; it also has a fund for dealing with problems experienced in the development of new medicines.
There is also the example of New Zealand. I have been asking people about the system in that country. It is a most interesting but rather worrying situation.
572
I believe that 1.4 per cent. of New Zealand's GNP can be traced as going into its no-fault accident legislation. Moreover, I was told not long ago about the case of a man who built a ladder. He climbed the ladder in order to prune an apple tree but the ladder broke. Despite the fact that it was his ladder and that he climbed it himself in order to look after his own fruit, he received quite considerable compensation for the subsequent damage which occurred. That example brings to mind the line suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. I understand the noble Lord's point. We cannot wrap everyone up in cotton wool for 24 hours of every day.
There is one further point that I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. I refer again to the question of cost. One of the men who sat on the inquiry of the Royal College of Physicians is the secretary of Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, Dr. Ashley-Miller. He told me that the trust recently received an application to make a detailed study of the present costs of compensation in the medical world in order to ascertain what no-fault costs would amount to, if introduced. I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that I do not believe that there will be 100 per cent. support today for his schemes. Eventually that support will be forthcoming. But it seems to me that the information about costs is bound to loom large in the mind of any Secretary of State who is wondering how he can take the matter forward.
When we eventually move in the direction proposed, I hope that we shall be able to separate the costs of these unfortunate outturns of an increasingly technological health service and what may possibly go wrong through technological as well as surgical, medical or obstetrical errors. We must be able to separate those payments from the regional or district health authority funds which really should be established for the care of patients and not for paying compensation. If we have the football pools type situation, very considerable sums of money may be deflected from the clinical care of the remaining patients to cover the cost of any unfortunate accident which may arise.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, initiated the debate in his usual humanitarian fashion. I believe that a tribute is also due to the honourable Member for Greenwich for her courage in introducing the compensation Bill in another place. Whatever flaws the proposed legislation may have—I believe that it has some and I shall try to illustrate them in a moment—it is a pity that it was not at least given a Second Reading so that it could have been further discussed. I say that because there is a point upon which we are all agreed: the present system is illogical and unfair. Those of us who have children who are normal and fit must give some thought to the people who have brain damaged or disabled children. There must, of course, be two lines of thought in this sphere.
I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the debate who is neither a doctor nor a lawyer. However, I am concerned about

573
the matter because I used to work in the insurance industry. I should point out at this stage that I speak for myself and not for any influential organisation. There are many problems in the present system. If the no-fault compensation system goes through in its logical form—I hope that I may put it that way—there would be enormous increases in insurance premiums. That would have a serious effect on the medical profession. Of course, the health service does not have any insurance as such.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to New Zealand and Finland. Having visited both countries I have some knowledge about them, though I am not conversant with the no-fault compensation systems in those countries because I am not a lawyer. However, when I visited Finland about seven years ago I recall visiting a special hospital in the town of Espoo which is just outside of Helsinki. There I saw a number of brain damaged children who were taken care of in what is known as the Rivvekoti Centre. The children were beautifully looked after, but it was an intensely moving and sad experience. Whatever compensation their parents received they would have no hope whatever, with the state of medical progress at present, of leading a normal life.
The latter point leads me on to the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, we all know about the Opren and Thalidomide tragedies. However, the Medicines Act did make considerable progress as regards the testing of drugs. It is, of course, an ill tested drug which can, more often than not, cause problems. In my view, it is essential that more and more research is carried out in that respect. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister has any current figures from her department on the number of brain damaged children, and others, who are awaiting compensation. I know that that is a very general question and I realise that it will probably be verb difficult for her to find an off-the-cuff answer. However, I believe it is important both to your Lordships and to the country that we know roughly how many people are at present involved in such claims.
In regard to the American system, I recall that when I started in Lloyd's of London in 1948 I worked in the claims department of an underwriting syndicate. We dealt with American malpractice and Workmen's Compensation Act insurance. Even in those days, 42 years ago, settlements often went into six figures. We do not want that kind of situation to evolve in this country.
I believe that the Government must act quickly in this matter in order somehow to offset the effects of the present tiresome and illogical system. The effects are tiresome for both the legal and medical professions because the people in those professions have to make agonising judgments. Of course, it is easy to say that, but governments of all parties need to carry out a great deal of research into the matter and there is no instant legislation available.
Similarly, one has the tragedy of the rather cynical lottery which exists at present. A person knocked down by a car may receive a six-figure sum in compensation; but a person damaged by a drug—through no fault of the pharmaceutical company or
574
the doctor—particularly in regard to medical research, may not. That is the problem we face. The House and the country should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and to the noble Baroness, for having given the Government—any government—something to think about seriously.
5 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join other Peers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing the debate today. The point of view from all speakers in the House has been almost unanimous that our system of compensation for medical negligence through the courts in many cases encourages the practice of defensive medicine. It also adds enormously to the cost to the NHS through the excessive use of pathology tests and X-rays in order to ensure that nothing has been missed and that there is no danger of a doctor being sued for negligence. Perhaps the worst problems are in the obstetric field.
Saddest of all is that our system has created a grave danger to openness between doctor and patient because the doctor is afraid of saying too much. Sometimes a patient only wants a clear explanation of what went wrong; an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that it will not happen again. That situation is beginning to disappear altogether from our system due to the danger of being sued in court. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who expressed the view that compensation for medical negligence should be made in annual payments. I could not agree more with him. How can a judge decide how long a person will live? Somebody who is expected to live only 10 years may live for 50 years these days, and the situation could result the other way round.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, suggested that I might talk about the Swedish system. In Scandinavia there are no enormous payments; there are annual payments which increase with inflation to cover the costs necessary to keep the injured person in funds.
The Swedish Government rejected the New Zealand system of an overall no-fault compensation. The system in Sweden, started in 1975, involved only injuries from medical treatment, but in 1978 it was extended to include drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, also mentioned that he would like an insurance scheme. In both Sweden and Finland schemes are based on voluntary group insurance between the health authorities—in Sweden the county councils because our system is devolved—the drug companies and the insurance consortia. It is quite interesting to realise that in 1988 the premiums were about 70 pence per head per year. Thus it is possible to set up an insurance scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, was nervous about a no-fault insurance scheme because it might not preclude a person from going to court and obtaining a large compensation award in addition. In Sweden, injured persons are not parties to the insurance agreement, therefore they are free to pursue their claim in the courts if they so desire, rather than

575
receiving compensation through the insurance schemes. However, they cannot do both; that would obviously be absolutely wrong. It is interesting to note that there have been very few court cases since the introduction of the no-fault compensation scheme.
In Sweden patients have a statutory right to information about their medical treatment, and they have had that right for a long time. It is essential for a successful implementation of the patient injury scheme. That will apply in this country also, I understand, from November, when patients will have access to their own medical records.
Certain standards are set for eligibility. A patient must have been ill for 30 days or in hospital for 10 days. The advantages of the scheme are that it is quick, has low administrative costs and eliminates legal costs and the adversarial features between doctor and patient. Those are completely avoided; there is no holding back in an open conversation between doctor and patient about what may have gone wrong.
In addition, in 1980 in Sweden the responsibility board for health and medical care was set up. It consists of a judge, four Members of Parliament and four members representing various organisations. In other words, in Sweden the responsibility board is outside the medical profession, but it is limited in its jurisdiction. It can only impose a caution as a sanction for a less severe mistake and a reprimand for a more serious mistake. The board has absolutely no authority to revoke a licence. That procedure is still left in the hands of the medical profession.
The Finnish system is much more recent; it started later than the Swedish system. The Finnish Patient Injury Act was passed in 1986 and the government are to be congratulated on having defined much more clearly the grounds on which compensation should be paid. If I had more time, I would read those grounds to the House but noble Lords who are interested will find them at column 1244 of the proceedings of Hansard in another place for 1st February 1991, volume 184. I believe that we in this country should look very carefully at the matter. I am sorry that I do not have any more time.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, everyone has said how much we in this House owe to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing not only this debate but so many others. I find it very unsatisfactory that with so much wisdom in the House each speaker is confined to seven minutes. It is treating us all as though we were sixth-formers. We must somehow find a better way than this because the House possesses great experience; we have heard many brilliant speeches, each containing a gem. However that problem is not for us today.
First, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that it would be nice if we had been debating the issue on the Second Reading of a Bill that had come from another place. I have great respect for the way in which Mrs. Rosie Barnes put forward her Bill. It was based on a great
576
deal of experience among some of my noble and honourable friends, particularly Miss Harriet Harman, who was involved in previous legislative attempts. It would have been nice had the Bill received a Second Reading, been knocked around in Committee in another place and had come here and we had knocked it around in Committee and finally tried to get it right.
We have been reminded that this issue has been debated year after year. I first debated it in November 1978, shortly after the report of the Pearson Commission had been published. I did not give the reaction of the government who were then in power. I merely said that we were carefully considering the report. Shortly after that, another government came to power. Twelve years later we are still considering this matter. Before I have to give way to allow the Minister to speak at 5.29 p.m. I had better say what my party's policy is. It would be a pity if I missed that out.
We believe that there should be a system of no-fault compensation for the victims of medical accidents. I am not talking about road accident victims. We believe that the Government should set up an inquiry and ask for a report with recommendations on the details of how such a scheme would work. I hope the Minister can comment on that. The whole House has been concerned with the costing of such a scheme. The Minister may be able to give us a good deal of information on the matter. The Government should certainly investigate the cost of the current scheme for compensation for negligence, including court settlements, out of court settlements, the medical indemnity scheme, court costs, legal aid costs, the cost to the social security system of benefits for the victims of medical accidents and all the other different costs that are involved. We talk about how expensive a no-fault liability scheme would be but we do not know how expensive it would be. However, we could at least make an assessment of how costly the present scheme is.
The whole House was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for explaining to us the position in Sweden. It is important to know about that; but one has to recognise that in Sweden there is a much more substantial social security system to go with the scheme. I direct that observation to my noble friend Lord Cocks. I never like to disagree with him, although I sometimes do. I believe he was wrong, although I share his concern that in considering compensation for people who suffer from medical accidents, whether by negligence or other fault, we must also consider the position of other victims. I remember facing the same problem when I first became a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security.
At that time there was an industrial injuries scheme and a scheme for war disabled. I was very interested in the latter scheme as I am war disabled myself and my pension is an important part of my income. We recognised that it was important that no section of society should be left out of compensation arrangements. Over the years governments have tried to introduce benefits which help people who are

577
naturally disabled. Governments have introduced attendance allowances and mobility allowances. I hope that eventually disablement costs allowances will be introduced.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, spoke with great emphasis and clarity. The logic of his argument is that all costs of medical mishaps causing injury should be compensated for by the state. I first came across this issue in a direct way in 1978 when I introduced a Bill for vaccine payments. That Bill was not concerned with compensation but payments, I felt forced to introduce that Bill to restore public confidence in vaccination policy—there was much criticism at that time that children had been damaged by vaccines—as people in their hundreds of thousands were opting out of vaccinations, Without doubt those vaccinations were to their children's advantage. I also wanted to help those relatively few people whose children had reacted adversely to vaccinations. That was a special case.
I return to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his point about haemophiliacs. What was special about the haemophiliacs was that they were able to organise a lobby, There was huge public concern about their plight. A limited number of people were afflicted and the press took hold of the matter. The Government were forced to act. That was what was special about that case, not the fact that those people were haemophiliacs.
The Government had to react in the case of the haemophiliacs in the way that I had to react at the time of the vaccine payments Bill.
I believe that almost every speaker in this debate has agreed that the present system is grossly unsatisfactory. It is unpredictable because the injured person, on whom the burden of proving negligence falls, cannot know in advance whether he will receive compensation. The existence of the injury is clear, but it is not clear whether the victim will receive compensation, or how much. The compensation procedure is expensive because of the cost of litigation. That cost is likely to deter some people from seeking compensation. If costs are not awarded against the defendants, they are likely to eat substantially into the award.
I am not criticising any noble Lords here who are lawyers, but the amount that is paid in legal fees is a substantial proportion of the money that is eventually paid from the public purse. I refer to the public purse because it is the health authorities who have to foot the bill when a case is successfully prosecuted in court.
The system is unfair for a number of reasons. The costs and risks of litigation place enormous pressure on claimants to settle for less than full compensation. The dividing line between success—and perhaps substantial compensation—and failure is a fine one. It is both necessary and difficult to apportion blame where there has been a medical accident. The system is also unfair because a person who can attribute a medical accident to negligence will obtain compensation while another victim of what may be an almost identical accident, but who cannot prove negligence,
578
will get nothing. Similar cases of injury will be compensated in quite different ways. Mrs. Rosie Barnes was quite right to say in another place:
"The current system is a lottery and it is necessary to prove negligence to be awarded compensation. There may be negligence, but proving it can be distressing, costly and time consuming—and quite often impossible. The only witness may be unconscious at the time of the incident, unaware of what is being done and why".—[Official Report, Commons, 1.2.91; col. 1224.]
Noble Lords have also argued that the system is unsatisfactory because of the extraordinary time lags involved. Mrs Barnes also related (at col. 1224 of Hansard) the unfortunate tale of a woman. She said,
"Her husband died some seven years ago, us a result of what she believed to be negligence following a fairly routine and relatively minor piece of surgery. She was left a young widow, with three children. She took the matter to court, and was eventually awarded £250,000 in compensation—although she made it clear that it was not the money, but a proper investigation and explanation, in which she was interested.
The matter did not end there, however. The health authority chose to appeal and, seven years after her husband's death, the woman discovered that she had lost her £250,000 award; even worse, costs of £150,000 were awarded against her. The only way in which she can meet those costs is by selling her house".
Perhaps that is an extreme case, but there are many other extreme cases. It is such extreme cases which prove that the present system is grossly unfair and grossly unsatisfactory.
I hope that the Minister will not merely answer the questions that have been raised in this House but say something that will show the way forward. There is a feeling that at last the time has come to put something on the statute book which provides fairness and justice and addresses the problems which have been raised, such as the question of defensive medicine mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Something has to be done. We look forward very much to the Minister's reply to what I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has been a remarkable debate.
5.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his clear introduction of the subject, which has attracted wide bipartisan interest both here and in another place. I can assure him that we take seriously the worries and concerns that have been expressed. I have been most interested to note that, as my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes said, in the course of this debate no one has fully supported the status quo. That at least is a starting point.
Perhaps I may attempt to summarise some of the concerns. First, there is a feeling that it is unfair for one person to receive extensive damages, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned, while another cannot bring a case or, having brought the case to court, loses it.
On the question of unfairness, it is central to the common law approach that we follow in this country that a person who has been damaged by the negligent action of another is entitled to be compensated by that other person for the harm he or she has suffered. In a very even-handed way the noble Lord, Lord Cocks,

579
pointed out that there could be unfairness for other groups of handicapped people even under a no-fault scheme.
We have established that there is a system which operates if doctors are at fault. If doctors are not at fault, and despite the best endeavours of all concerned treatments fail with damaging results, is it still appropriate to compensate patients? If more money has to be diverted into compensating patients for the result of entirely diligent treatment less is available for compensating those who are genuinely entitled to compensation. Most important of all from the point of view of the National Health Service, less money is available for the first duty of the National Health Service, which is to give treatment to patients who need it.
Secondly, there is concern that large awards and increasing litigiousness may increase cases against doctors. We have heard of the experience in the United States where an escalation in defensive medicine and even more litigation is predicted. There is no evidence that that is happening here, though I noted the examples quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. If defensive medical practices are adopted by a doctor in order to prove in a court of law that he has taken every precaution that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Apart from the fact that there is little hard evidence to validate the fears of an increase in defensive medicine—and the views of the Royal College of Physicians and the King's Fund Institute could be quoted in support of that fact—even if there is a risk it is by no means certain that any proposals that have been put forward in favour of a no-fault scheme would do anything to reduce it.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said:
"Something has to be done. The question is what".
Most proposals for no-fault compensation retain the right to sue in tort. Doctors would thus still have to live with the prospect of litigation. In cases which would not progress to the courts but which would proceed under a no-fault system, negligence might no longer be an issue. However, the number of potential compensation cases would increase substantially and doctors would still wish to avoid involvement in specific cases which would be both time-consuming and stressful. We believe that overall the outcome would be to increase rather than diminish the propensity for defensive medicine.
In connection with the American experience it should also be noted that damages in the United States are awarded by juries who are not professionally expert in the assessment of damages. Damages can be tremendously high and may be intended as much as a warning to other perpetrators as to rectify the harm which has been done. In this country damages are awarded by experienced judges who determine the needs of victims on the basis of an assessment of their needs to overcome the damage and the financial implications. The relative systems between the United Kingdom and the United States
580
are thus very different. Furthermore, we have to bear in mind that American lawyers have a contingency based fee system, as we were reminded by my noble friend Lord McColl, which gives them a proportion of the damages awarded to their clients. That must clearly have some effect.
Before leaving that subject perhaps I may quote a recent British Medical Journal article which said that:
"one of the features of using US analogies in British debates is the lack of attention to real evidence on the American position. This is compounded by the tendency of some to predict the future by assuming that 'current trends will continue'".
Apparently insurance premiums to cover doctors against actions for negligence have gone down over the past two years.
Thirdly, concern has been expressed that recourse to the courts is damaging to the doctor/patient relationship and that the present system does not sufficiently bring home accountability. The relationship is damaged when the patient is convinced that the doctor has been negligent and not when the patient commences an action in tort. Even though the process may take place outside a court of law, doctors are still entitled to defend themselves.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that doctors and other health professionals are required to provide patients with enough information about treatment alternatives and consequences to allow the patient to take a proper decision on whether to accept the treatment. If a doctor fails to discharge that obligation he may be guilty of assault.
The fourth underlying concern which has been raised relates to criticisms of our tort system. There is a feeling that winning a negligence action is too difficult, too slow, too uncertain and too expensive. That is an area in which the Government are in full sympathy. We therefore supported the passage of the Private Member's Bill which led to the Access to Health Records Act 1990 which will put at the patient's disposal information that will enable him to make an informed decision on whether to pursue a negligence claim.
Regarding the process of litigation, the Government acknowledged the need for reform of civil litigation when the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, set up the Civil Justice Review as long ago as 1985. That resulted in some 91 recommendations to reduce the cost, delay and complexity within the civil justice system and generally to improve access to justice. Among the most important proposals affecting medical injury litigation which came out of that review are the matching of cases to judges, a "cards on the table" approach to evidence and an interventionist role for the courts to ensure case progress. From July this year there will be new arrangements for the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts to ensure that cases are heard by the appropriate level of judge. Those changes will provide that the High Court is reserved for such cases as require its expertise. We hope that the result will be speedier determination of actions. New rules have already been introduced

581
requiring earlier disclosure of medical reports and statements of special damages by the plaintiff. Furthermore, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be considering steps to allow courts to exercise an interventionist role in ensuring case progress. I trust that your Lordships will agree that those measures will do much to assist those who resort to the courts to establish their claims for compensation.
The question that remains, however, is whether there should be choice, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and what can be done for those who cannot prove negligence. It is suggested by some that no-fault compensation is the answer. However, no credible no-fault scheme which is simple to run, straightforward in operation, fair in outcome or acceptable in cost has thus far been devised, whether in Sweden, New Zealand or anywhere else. However, in saying that, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for updating us on the current position in Scandinavia.
The Pearson Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was a most distinguished member, reported in 1978 and was sympathetic to proposals for a no-fault scheme. But it identified problems relating to finance, scope and administration.
However, the most significant difficulty identified was how to establish causation. It was forced to conclude that in practice there would be difficulty in distinguishing a medical accident from the natural progression of the disease or injury and from a foreseeable side effect of the treatment. I think that we are no nearer establishing causation some 12 years later. Although advances in medical science have clarified some causal links—for example, that damage to the brain during delivery is rarely the cause of cerebral palsy—the introduction of innovative techniques and new drugs and the increasingly complex interactions between these and the patients to whom they are applied heighten rather than diminish the problems of proving causation in the individual case.
For all those reasons the Government's position remains that the basis for seeking compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered as a result of medical intervention should be proof of negligence actions through the courts and that the Government's approach should be to effect changes to improve the process of litigation. Where negligence cannot be proved we do not in any event accept that there should normally be provision beyond that which is available through social security benefits and free National Health Service treatment. After all, that leaves scope for ad hoc arrangements in exceptional cases such as the whooping cough vaccine to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred, and the haemophiliac settlement. Like others, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his enlightening explanation of the humanitarian approach.
Looking ahead, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is most concerned that if any further action could be taken concerning medical negligence,
582
then action should be taken. I must dispute the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that my right honourable friend was unconstructive in his response to the Private Member's Bill Second Reading debate in another place. He has given undertakings to discuss with interested parties whether an arbitration procedure could be established within the National Health Service, which may provide quicker, cheaper and simpler avenues for the informal resolution of disputes. The announcement was made without commitment since we want to see the outcome of our consultation and to take advice on the feasibility of introducing such a measure without primary legislation and as a voluntary alternative to the courts. We should also want to consider the likely take-up of such a scheme in the light of the improved litigation processes to which I have referred.
Secondly, my right honourable friend was able to point to the fact that that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering with the Law Commission the possibility of instituting a new inquiry into personal injury damages. Thirdly, he announced his intention to investigate, with the help of the presidents of the various royal colleges, what exactly is understood by the term "defensive medicine" and what hard evidence there is for its practice. Fourthly, my right honourable friend readily conceded that we should have more central information about the matter and proposed that the Department of Health should both review the incidence of medical accidents and carry out a proper analysis of claims made.
It is an interesting idea that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Walton; namely, that a high level committee should be set up to investigate further. That also probably falls into the category of the inquiry asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. No doubt both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will consider the suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to the European Commission's proposal for a directive concerning the liability of providers of services in cases in which an individual has suffered damage to his personal property from the provision of a service. The proposal puts forward a fault-based regime. The plaintiff will have to prove damage and a causal link between the damage and the service provided. At that point the proposal reverses the burden of proof. The defendant would then have to prove that he was not at fault. At the moment the proposal is in its initial stages and is being considered. I understand that it is the responsibility of my honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and that the Department of Trade and Industry is currently seeking the views of those representing the interests of both consumers and industry.
I trust that your Lordships will be assured that the Government have given and are prepared to give most careful consideration to the case for a no-fault system for medical injuries. I believe it has been established by both the debate and what I have been able to say that no-fault compensation is not a straightforward or easy

583
option. It has not so far proved possible to devise a scheme which would relieve unfairness and which would be straightforward in application. Because of the various checks and balances in different countries and different systems, it is not possible to transfer directly one scheme which might work in one country to another country. Certainly we consider that the National Health Service (Compensation) Bill, which has been referred to by many speakers in the debate and which was rejected at Second Reading in another place, did not offer a workable solution. As drafted the Bill could not work. The detailed principles on which the scheme was supposed to work had been left to one side to be resolved by someone else at a later date.
Many interesting and useful points have been raised in the course of the debate. Clearly the Government recognise the interest and importance of the subject. Once again I record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for bringing forward the subject for debate and for giving me the opportunity to explain the Government's position
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I can ask for clarification. Do the Government accept that this is a proper subject, in view of the concern expressed today here and elsewhere, to be referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not sure that it is proper for the Government to refer a subject to a Select Committee. Nevertheless, I have given the assurance that the Government will consider very seriously the points that have been made in the course of the debate.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what I think has been an impressive debate. I certainly make no apology for having raised this issue so soon after the debate in the House of Commons, although I repeat—it is so long ago that everyone may have forgotten —that I was never for a moment suggesting that we should discuss Mrs. Barnes's particular proposals as set out in her Bill. I acknowledged the improvements that have been made or are in prospect, including, if I may remind the noble Lord, Lord McColl, even a modified form of contingency fee.
In approaching this subject it seemed to me that the present system is not an efficient way of using money. When I considered the proportion of costs of various kinds which are borne in relation to the money actually paid out, so that probably in the small cases the costs are rather greater than the award, it did not seem to me that that was the best way for the National Health Service to benefit.
I am also unimpressed by the argument about anomalies. I thought that the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce was particularly interesting. I also reminded myself by looking at what the Pearson Report stated in its concluding reflections covering the whole field:
584
"We have not removed anomalies…; we have merely moved the boundary lines. We think that the new boundary lines are more sensible, but those who fall on the wrong side may not agree".
Short of going for some kind of New Zealand scheme—I do not think anyone in this Chamber would wish to see that—there is no way of avoiding anomalies, but there are ways of improving the scheme and improving provisions in various ways. I remind the House that I did not suggest a particular form of no-fault scheme. The disadvantages of the present set-up, the number of suggestions that have been made, and the anxieties and frustrations which were felt generally have led me to the conclusion that it would be desirable for a committee of inquiry to be set up to investigate the arguments that we have heard from both sides of the House. It is a topic which cuts across party lines.
I derive some modest encouragement from what the Minister said about her colleagues considering the suggestion of setting up a committee. I had better leave it at that. I thank her for her reply and noble Lords for the contributions to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Performing Arts
5.41 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the problems facing the performing arts; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion this evening I shall try to limit my remarks to 10 minutes in order to give those who know considerably more about the subject than I do a little more time to speak. Before doing so I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, who so soon after his introduction cancelled an engagement at short notice to give his maiden speech this evening. We all look forward to it enormously.
In the near future the Government will have to face some major problems concerned with funding the arts. At present the national companies are not responsible for financing their buildings. For example, the National Theatre has no sinking fund for building repairs. That is all the more alarming since the building shows signs of sinking into the Thames. Over 15 years the building has developed cracks in the fly tower of the Lyttelton Theatre and water drips into the foyer from faults in the promenade. The repairs to the fly tower will cost £500,000 and the promenade repairs £300,000. The Royal Shakespeare Company has begun to murmur that some renovations will be needed in the Barbican.
What is the Government's policy on the matter? Do they intend to do what they have done for museums and galleries? They have been given a capital sum the income from which can be used to pay for the repairs formerly undertaken by the Property Services Agency. The capital sum given was quite inadequate to cope with the arrears of maintenance of over half a century. But, be that as it may, what is the Government's policy? They cannot expect the national companies or

585
the South Bank to maintain the buildings in which they work when sponsorship is diminishing and when a surplus is made, as occurs at the National Theatre from time to time, it is taken as a signal to reduce the grant by that amount.
Of course the companies and the orchestras are more concerned about the state of the recurrent grant. This is a singularly inopportune time for anyone to ask for more money for the arts. Mr. Mellor was successful in obtaining an 11 per cent. increase when an increase of about 5 per cent. had been expected. It is well known that the increase is just enough to cope with inflation and not much more. I foresee a bleak immediate future. The tourist trade will be down, sponsors less able to give, donations from businesses will decline and every public service, from the National Health Service and education to the railways, will be clamouring for more public money.
Much of what I say tonight may be deplored by some noble Lords. I believe that the Arts Council will have to make some very disagreeable decisions about priorities. As Keynes used to say—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, will agree—the worst policy is to cut across the board and make equal misery for all. I therefore ask: how many national orchestras can we afford? Can we really afford six ballet companies? If the Royal Shakespeare Company has at last been brought to its senses and has reduced the number of stages on which it performs from 10 to four—two in the Barbican and two at Stratford—can there not be some rationalisation of effort elsewhere?
How many opera companies can we afford? Every Welshman, led by the Leader of the Opposition, will die on Offa's Dyke rather than see the Welsh National Opera disappear; and rightly so. It is a marvellous company. But the question remains: are Kent Opera and Opera North comparable in quality to that company?
There is one special case. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is abroad and cannot speak for the Royal Opera House. Some noble Lords may call the Royal Opera House the rich man's parade ground. The rich certainly pay for their pleasures. Seat prices have risen by 135 per cent. in five years. Donations represent 15 per cent. of the Royal Opera House income. In Paris, Vienna and Milan, 80 per cent. of the income for those opera houses comes from the state. At the Royal Opera House it is 36 per cent. Only five years ago the figure was 53 per cent. The Royal Opera, the Royal Ballet and Royal Birmingham Ballet give 450 performances a year more than any other comparable European company. For opera, 93 per cent. of the seats are sold; for ballet the figure is 91 per cent. Yet there are fewer in the chorus and fewer dancers than in New York, Paris or even Denmark. The Royal Opera House is a triumph of financial resourcefulness.
But the question is simply this: does our country want an international opera house where the world's greatest singers and a great ballet company can perform? If the answer is yes, I do not believe that the present situation can continue.
What I say applies equally to the provinces. Let us take the Liverpool Playhouse. It is a theatre which is well worth saving. But how can the city council, in its present plight, operate a pound for pound subsidy? Expenditure on libraries can come out of the central government block grant. However, expenditure on theatres must come out of the community charge. We therefore have the paradoxical situation that the Arts Council says to Liverpool, "Raise your community charge", and the Department of the Environment says to the city, "Lower your community charge".
I agree that local support must be forthcoming to qualify for a grant. Think what Birmingham, Glasgow and now Sheffield are doing for their citizens. For years the Arts Theatre in Cambridge was ignored by the Arts Council until the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, intervened. However, I am bound to say that the meanness of that city is matched by the niggardliness of the greatest and richest of the Cambridge colleges.
Whenever anyone suggests that a company or a university department should be closed down there is an uproar. No wonder. That spells unemployment and a bitter sense of futility among the dedicated people who work their hearts out for the arts. I believe that one can diminish the uproar if one can persuade those in the same line of business that the decision was taken on judgments made by their peers. Peers—and who in this House will deny it? —make informed judgments. When Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer was chairman of the University Grants Committee he asked experts in every academic field to rank departments. Dons naturally denounced the results of those rankings in public. But behind locked doors and in the Athenaeum they recognised that the University Grants Committee had got the rankings about right. Will the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, consider having a word with Sir Peter to learn the wisdom of the serpent and see whether the Arts Council committees could undertake some ranking?
Like all those who love opera I have my criticisms of the Royal Opera House; there are too many new productions and too few are successful, often ruined by producer power. I have my criticism of the Royal Shakespeare Company; there are too many trendy productions that insult Shakespeare. Why cannot John Barton be brought back to produce "Julius Caesar" or "Macbeth", spoken as it was in Shakespeare's time in the accent which scholars have reconstructed? I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that he need not look alarmed because I shall resist the temptation to give the House an impression of what it would sound like.
Those criticisms are simply provoked by the excitement that great art generates. Yet in these times it requires an act of faith by those who work for the arts to continue to believe in the eternal value of art in transforming the notions held by men and women of the nature of life. All that those underpaid and overworked devotees can do as they work in the theatre, orchestras, the film industry and all branches of the arts is to repeat to themselves the words of Henry James:

587
"We work in the dark. We do what we can. We give what we have. Our doubt is our passion, and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art".
5.52 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing this important topic. It also gives us the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. We look forward to his speech with the greatest pleasure and interest. He has a sensitive and difficult job which involves much unpaid time and effort. It is wrong that the job of the chairman of the Arts Council should be unpaid; there is a need for legislation to change that situation.
I am glad that there is no need for me to reopen earlier arguments about the Welsh National Opera because an initial wrong has been largely put right. I say "largely put right" because, unexpectedly, there is a question about whether £50,000 of the promised £300,000 can be found. Despite that hitch, the Arts Council deserves credit for a change of heart, for the acknowledgement of its error and for its correction. The situation which faced the Welsh National Opera—and there are those who would die for it east of Offa's Dyke as well, because it is the major touring company in England—is typical of the problems confronting most performing arts organisations.
Before I turn to consider those problems it is right that I should give proper credit to the Government. Richard Luce made an important breakthrough by establishing a principle of 3-year funding. However, he left his successor an awkward inheritance—an increase in arts funding of 3 per cent. at a time when inflation was more than 9 per cent. The five major British opera companies warned that that would mean closure. Other performing arts companies were no less threatened. Mr. Mellor went into battle with characteristic determination. He found the ear of a sympathetic Chief Secretary, now Chancellor. The new enhancement fund makes a critical difference. David Hunt also played his part and found resources to write off the inherited debt of the Welsh National Opera.
But fundamental problems remain. The situation confronting that company will be all too familiar to the management of almost every company, large or small. Despite a remarkable record at the box office, success in attracting sponsorship and fund raising, it is dependent for the majority of its funding on Arts Council subsidies. Over a number of years those subsidies have fallen short of the rate of inflation. As with many other performing arts companies the programme must be planned several years ahead; artists must be hired and commitments made. The promise of 3-year funding is of very little help if the commitments for later years bear no relationship to the likely rise in costs.
I cannot emphasise enough the point about the length of the planning cycle. The only possible basis for the maintenance of performing arts companies is through long-term partnership with funding organisations. The majority of performing arts companies have virtually no room for manoeuvre. For years they have
588
pruned costs simply in order to survive. Their performers are not well paid and their numbers, which are dictated by the nature of their art, cannot be reduced. Many of their costs are outside their control. The room for increased sponsorship, or even its maintenance, is constrained by the economic circumstances of the time.
I have spoken of partnership. Even if those companies were tempted to be profligate they are the subject of appraisal and supervision. Representatives of the Arts Council attended almost every meeting of the finance and general purposes committee of the WNO. The ability to influence policy and economy exists with every client of the Arts Council and the arts associations. If partnership is to work it cannot be arbitrary. It depends upon the existence of successful relationships based on knowledge and mutual respect between officials. It depends upon the members of the council maintaining such relationships with their own officials that they are well informed and support agreed plans, including essential long-term corporate plans. It depends upon an equal level of understanding and support by the Government of the Arts Council's commitments and plans.
Partnership is not confined to revenue funding. Frequently it involves the provision of accommodation where local government has a particularly important role. We in this country do not have a good record on buildings, not only in relation to maintenance. We desperately need more theatres capable of staging opera, dance and large-scale performances of all kinds. That is why I have always been a vigorous supporter of the efforts being made in Cardiff and North Wales to build suitable theatres. I was saddened that as Secretary of State I could not find the money to build an opera house in addition to a commitment to a major extension of the National Museum of Wales. However, it is welcome news that he has given the go ahead for detailed studies of the Cardiff project and that a private backer has come forward with a substantial offer of funding for a theatre in North Wales.
One particular problem arises from the established terms of employment. In this country singers and musicians who are poorly paid for their basic work can demand large fees for performances for TV and video. That makes such broadcasts extremely expensive and therefore one seldom sees broadcasts or videos of British opera. The companies, the performers and the public all lose out. I am glad that recently the unions agreed to reduce some of those payments. But there is an urgent need to go further and to introduce new contracts that will raise basic earnings which, as on the Continent, require a reasonable number of TV and video performances. Apart from the benefits to the performers and the companies, the public would get better value for its subsidies because performances would be seen by vastly larger audiences.
Despite some philistine cries of protest, there is increasing acceptance that the arts need and deserve public subsidy, as they have received it in some form or another in most ages and in most countries. Without that support we should be unable to share

589
some of the greatest creative efforts of the human mind about which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, spoke. The loss would not simply be cultural. Thriving artistic institutions are an essential component of a successful social and economic environment and they are an absolutely vital tool of economic revival in previously depressed areas. I was delighted to hear the present Secretary of State for Wales express a similar view when speaking last Saturday to members of the Welsh National Opera after a splendid first night in Cardiff.
6 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sure that we are all looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, who has great courage in speaking so soon after his introduction. I believe that he will have an easy run this evening but I cannot promise that that will always be so. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating the debate. However, I do not agree with what he said about not fighting for more funds at present. Unless you fight for the priority which you believe is important, you never get anywhere. It is always the wrong time, especially for funds for the arts. I believe that we must continue with the battle.
Why are the arts always in chronic crisis? There is not enough money. Why should we have the lowest expenditure per capita on the arts among our major European neighbours—less than half that of France or Germany? Why are we losing companies of such excellence as the Kent Opera and the Liverpool Playhouse? The RSC was only pulled back from the brink after its London base was closed for several months. Many smaller companies all over the country are faring even worse. One is apt to forget the smaller companies and think only of the larger ones.
Since the Arts Council's housing the arts fund was wound up, there is now no major source of funds for capital renewal in theatres' national stock. There cannot be performances without buildings in which they can be held. The Theatres Trust, on whose council I sit, with its slender resources is attempting to do a first stock-taking, but without realistic funding it will be impossible to follow the study with action. More theatres will be in a state of disrepair or decay. I do not believe that that is always recognised.
Higher public investment leads to higher private investment both from industry and individuals. Arts Ministers have been quite right to boost sponsorship as much as possible. However, in 1989 some of the larger sponsors warned the Government that they were failing in their role as the core funder and threatened not to continue to carry the burden unless the Government played their financial part. That threat occasioned a prompt response, whereas cries for help from the arts community were dismissed as whingeing. I suppose that is par for the course.
Even if there is an arts lottery as a means of expanding arts opportunities—and it seems to me that that is a good idea—it is vital that the Government do not abdicate their responsibility because it would be
590
hazardous to leave the matter of funding in the hands of a lottery in the hope that it would raise the amounts required.
I am sure that we all feel that local authorities should be playing a greater role in arts support. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, local authorities are squeezed. They have to make terrible priority decisions—for example, should they take money from meals-on-wheels in order to keep a theatre going—in the context of the poll tax and charge capping. Therefore, at this time they cannot really fulfil much of an arts function. That is very sad, not only for financial reasons. Local authorities are in a position to create a link with people locally and interest them in the arts in a way which may be impossible if they are being performed centrally.
The last Arts Minister in Mrs. Thatcher's Government tried to paper over some of the cracks by earmarking money which was already within the Arts Council's budget—not new money—and calling it an enhancement fund. But that meant that incentive schemes being proposed or run by the Arts Council, including one for capital projects, were sacrificed to enable that rather dubious concept to exist. In introducing the new enhancement fund, the then Arts Minister, David Mellor, said:
"The Arts Council will draw up a detailed scheme which I will want to look at to see if it meets the needs of the hour".
I find that very worrying. What price the arm's length principle to which I thought most of us were wedded as regards the Arts Council? If that takes place it looks rather as though the arm has been telescoped to a stump.
Unfortunately many arts bodies today have lost faith in the Arts Council. They see it as more anxious to conform with the Government's wishes than to respond to the needs of performers and the public. A symptom of the present crisis of confidence is that after nine attempts, a chairman still cannot be found for the London Arts Board, and nor has it a director. When he replies perhaps the Minister can tell me whether there is any news of that extraordinary situation in our capital city.
Finally, amateur as well as professional companies are feeling badly undernourished. With music and art now made optional in schools after the age of 14, and drama and dance not even foundation subjects, we are hardly encouraging children to enjoy the arts and participate in them. In fact it is an exercise in devaluation. The arts are always in crisis because we do not provide the funds necessary for them today and we are not providing an environment to enable them to flourish tomorrow.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Palumbo: My Lords, it is with considerable trepidation that I rise for the first time in your Lordships' House, the more so since convention properly requires that my remarks are non-controversial. However, first and foremost, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this debate. Thinking it over, I confess that a debate on the arts could not take place in a more fitting and appropriate venue, because the Chamber is a work of

591
art in itself, conceived as it was by the great Victorian architect Sir Charles Barry, in collaboration with Augustus Pugin.
I crave your Lordships' indulgence for the points which I should like to make on the performing arts. I hope very much that when I have completed my speech, your Lordships will not feel constrained to censure me, as a former Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Beaconsfield, did when he said of that selfsame architect, Sir Charles Barry, that he should be hanged in public for his design of the Houses of Parliament.
My personal barometer for assessing the general health and condition of the performing arts and, indeed, the arts themselves, is twofold: first, I am anxious to discover how they are perceived in the eyes of the world at large, and in this case how our musicians, actors, dancers and singers are perceived in the eyes of the outside world; secondly, I am anxious to examine the very latest figures on attendances and on income generated from box office receipts.
There can be very little doubt that our artists are perceived by the outside world with admiration and even envy. Wherever and whenever they go abroad, they play to packed and appreciative audiences. One or two examples immediately come to mind: the recent hugely successful tour of Japan by the London Symphony Orchestra; the equally successful tours of Welsh National Opera, the Royal Ballet and English National Ballet in the United States; the triumphant tour of the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1989 when it played performances of "Titus Andronicus" in Paris, Madrid and Copenhagen; and finally, the huge success of English National Opera only last year in the Soviet Union, where it was the cultural mainstay of the British trade month. By any standards these great companies, and many others who follow them abroad, must be counted a huge success.
My conclusion is that while the Japanese and the Russians may not always understand the language of Shakespeare, the language of the arts is nevertheless a universal language. It transcends geographical boundaries and considerations of race, colour and creed. I believe that it is in every way as effective as any diplomatic initiative in building bridges and communicating across the divide.
I turn now to the subject of the attendance figures, which is the second part of my yardstick for assessing the health of the arts. I need only say that in the year 1989–90, which is the last year for which figures are available, 45 million people attended the theatre in the United Kingdom. Box office receipts from the theatre in that year amounted to £17.5 million. In the same year 2.7 million people visited the opera and generated box office receipts of £25 million, while dance generated box office receipts of £11 million. These must be impressive figures by any standards.
Box office considerations lead naturally to the issue of the funding of the arts. We live in a plural society and therefore it is hardly surprising that our funding has the same plural complexion. Underpinned by central government but with handsome contributions of almost £200 million from local authorities,
592
supplemented further by the private sector in its many guises and occasionally by European money from Brussels, that partnership is surely the way forward for the arts.
I should like to take this opportunity to correct a widespread misconception; that the arts, like defence, environment, health and education, are a bottomless pit. They most certainly are not. A little money in the arts goes a long way. It would be possible to calculate with some precision the additional sum of money required to resolve some of our present difficulties and the deficit situations of some of our client companies. By increasing their revenue base from that additional sum of money, we could ensure that those deficits were eliminated over a three-year period.
Despite those difficulties I firmly believe that prospects for the arts have never been more encouraging in this final decade of the second millenium. I say that because the range and depth of artistic talent in this country is second to none, both within the single market and without it. The increased accessibility of the arts is playing a vital part in their popularity, and that increased accessibility will be further enhanced as a result of a deregulated broadcasting system.
If that prediction is correct and if, as I am sure your Lordships will accept, administrations and societies are assessed in an historical context, not by the battles that they win or the economic miracles that they achieve—important though they are—but first and foremost by the contribution that they make to civilised values and civilised life, then we shall enter and greet the third millenium with confidence and the dawn of a new era.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, it is a privilege and a great personal pleasure to be allowed to be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Palumbo on his maiden speech. I hope that all noble Lords will join with me in saying to him what an amazing, articulate, interesting and informative speech it was. As he himself said, it is a convention that a maiden speech should not be controversial. There is no convention that says that it should be inspiring; I thought that it was.
My noble friend's vision of the arts comes from his enormous experience in them. The nation already owes my noble friend a great deal. A large number of the greatest galleries in the land owe much to his wisdom and guidance. I am happy to say that I believe he regards landscape as one of the arts; Paines Hill Park would not have got off to the start it has without his guidance. It is well known that he is a notable private patron of the arts; that is not possible for some of us nor encouraged by others. Therefore it is very nice that this stock of wisdom and goodwill towards the arts should be now available to the nation because he is chairman of the Arts Council. In a slightly more sinister tone I must say that it is also very nice that we have the chairman of the Arts Council in your Lordships' House. It is so much easier to get at him!
It is a convention to say to a maiden speaker that we hope to hear more of him. In the case of my noble

593
friend Lord Palumbo I am sure that the House will agree that we want to hear a lot more of him on frequent occasions.
In the time remaining to me I should like to ride three hobby-horses. I shall ride them at a gallop because I do not wish to overrun my time any more than do other noble Lords. The first touches upon the introductory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to whom I also offer my congratulations for introducing the debate. He referred to the capital problem; the lack of any capital fund for the arts. Many speakers touched upon the need for capital both for maintenance and for new buildings.
A solution to the problem would be possible if the nation were to accept the idea of a national lottery for arts, sports and the environment. We recently had a complete debate on that subject in your Lordships' House so I shall not weary your Lordships for long. If the calculations which seem to be generally accepted are true, that when up and going a national lottery could produce a sum of around £1 billion a year towards arts, sports and the environment, and indeed other charities, many of our capital problems could be solved
The next hobby-horse I ride I would not dare to ride without the first. It always seemed to me that in London the Lyric theatre—by which I mean dance and opera—-needs more stock of buildings. As a nation we already have the Royal Opera House, and the English National Opera leases the Colosseum. However, with the wealth of national companies and the wealth of talent that we have, the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and the Lyceum should be available to the nation. Although it appears to be a smaller issue, the Kingsway Hall —probably the finest recording hall in Europe—should be available to the nation also,
It is not an easy matter to acquire these premises; in many cases they are in private hands and the owners may not wish to part with them. It would be unthinkable even to propose it were the thought not at the back of my mind that a serious capital fund could enable such a thing to happen if circumstances led us in that direction. Put together those theatres could form a centre for the performing arts in London which would set us off into the 21st century in a way that we cannot at the moment look forward to.
My third hobby-horse is quite different. It is a subject that I introduced into your Lordships' House only a few days ago in the short education debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. It concerns the new school for the performing arts which is to open in Croydon in the autumn and of which I am president. I make no apology for introducing the matter again because it is a piece of thoroughly good news for the arts. From time to time we can do with good news in our debates. On the last occasion on which I introduced the subject I was taken to task by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who said that I could expect very little support and encouragement from those Benches for a CTC. In fact it is technically a CTCA—a city technology college of the arts. She said that she would look very carefully at the career of the school and of the schools around it in Croydon. I got
594
a slightly sinister impression that my school would be looked at and its success judged in relation to the success and careers of others schools in Croydon.
I intend to take no responsibility whatever for the other schools in Croydon. The point about our school is that it will provide an education in the performing arts for 14 to 18 year-olds in a way that has never been done before. It is fulfilling an educational need which in my experience has not been addressed before. It will give the students at the school a real experience of the arts world, not merely of the performance, but the technology, business, legal and union backgrounds. It will give a view of the entire world of the arts which people who intend to enter the profession must have if they are to make a success of it.
Whatever our views may be on the maintenance of schools in general and the provision of budgets for them, I do not hold with any attitude that, because of drawbacks in other educational departments, looks askance at a bright and encouraging school which is about to start. I expect to find universal encouragement in your Lordships' House for this school and its future.
6.22 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, in November 1989 the Arts Council recognised the urgent need to support the development of dance in the 1990s, and indeed extra funding has been made available to certain sectors. Yet, as we have heard from several noble Lords, everyone in the performing arts today will tell you that the overriding concern is money. Dance is no exception. Despite its high artistic standards in this field, Britain lacks the resources, theatres and regional infrastructure possessed by many of its European counterparts. Our dancers suffer from bad conditions of service and low pay and have to contend with inadequate facilities. Sufficient funding is vital to prevent at worst the disappearance of entire ballet companies. In 1989 the Northern Ballet Theatre very nearly faced such a closure and less severe financial problems have resulted in many companies having to cancel or postpone tours and productions.
However, it must be emphasised, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already said, that continuity of funding is also important. To allow any coherent arts policy to be implemented and to ensure that the traditions and the evolution of dance can be continued, there must be some degree of stability and reliance of funding. Dance, like all the performing arts, has to depend on multifarious sources of income embracing ticket sales, sponsorship and government subsidy, all of them unpredictable.
It is to be hoped that dance companies are making every effort to maximise efficiency and revenue and to keep expenses down. During a time of recession sponsorship is more difficult to obtain as the same number of prospective beneficiaries chases a reduced number of sponsors who may themselves have less to give. Inevitably, there is a greater dependence on whatever government subsidy is available, both locally and nationally. The allocation of funding by the Arts Council continues to cause considerable

595
controversy and this problem, we hope, is being addressed at present. Let us hope that a solution is found which allows an appropriate distribution of funds and which also ensures that the performing arts, such as dance, are granted the continuity of funding that is so vitally necessary. Failure to do so could result in the complete loss of artistic traditions built up, in the case of classical dance, over more than 200 years. Already a drop in standards in dance is becoming apparent.
I have argued for the need to maintain an on-going and adequate level of funding for professional dance companies. No less important is continued funding for training young dancers. In the past discretionary grants from local authorities were available for this purpose, but at present, excluding the Royal Ballet School for which separate provisions are made, award of these grants has become increasingly rare. This prevents talented children, whose parents lack sufficient financial means, from pursuing dance as a career.
Obviously the standard of dance performers is largely dependent on the quality of the training they receive. We are indeed fortunate in this country to have developed a system of classical ballet training embodied in the Royal Academy of Dancing syllabus which is now recognised in 48 countries throughout the world. The quality of the dance training in this country has meant that our young dancers and dance teachers are in considerable demand. However, the lack of opportunities here has meant that an increasing number are forced to seek their first jobs abroad, frequently in other EC countries. This poses a potential future problem. At present steps are being taken by the Council for Dance Education and Training to have dance teaching qualifications such as those offered by the Royal Academy of Dance recognised as national vocational qualifications within the UK.
When that has been achieved national recognition would ensure the free movement of qualified British dancers and ballet teachers throughout Europe as well. Failure or delay in recognising these dance qualifications could result in other EC member states introducing alternative standards which would inevitably restrict the freedom of movement of British qualified dancers and teachers in the EC.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for selecting this subject for debate. In doing so, I regret that he thought it necessary to give his distinguished blessing to the dreadful current usage of "the performing arts". The arts do not perform; people perform. If you must, the subject can be described as the "performance arts". I may be fighting a losing battle but, so far as I am concerned, it is never correct to refer to "the performing arts".
This country is no longer at the top of the league of material significance. In the Gulf we are concerned
596
with blowing up ourselves and everyone else. However, the French are stronger than we are and they take a much more sensible view of their responsibilities. The one area in which we stand high is the one which we neglect. To take a purely materialistic view, the arts are a plus in our balance of payments. Heaven knows, we need that plus!
However, our major theatrical and operatic companies survive by cutting corners. Our minor organisations in many cases are either collapsing or are on the verge of doing so. The state of the buildings which house marvellous performances is often so bad that if the legislation covering factories applied to more than one of them, no one would be allowed to work in them.
Those of us concerned with the matter have been struggling to persuade successive Governments to provide sufficient funds to enable the job to be done well. When I passed a not uncomplimentary remark about this Government the other day, I meant to say that they seemed to have got the message. I was not suggesting that, like Dr. Johnson's dog, they may not be doing it well, but the remarkable thing is that, considering their economic predilections and confusions in that area, they are doing it at all. We must be very grateful that they have seen the light. There are some exceptions to this rule, but in general the notion that there is an area in which the Government are concerned—this area is perhaps a most important area; at least as important as any other area in the performing arts—is now generally accepted.
The theatre is the art in which we have always excelled. Our performers, writers, composers, designers and directors are admired the world over, and deservedly so. The British theatre is also a hard-working and hard-earning industry. In the crudest economic terms it has attracted tourists—not many of them come to watch us play football or cricket, do they?—and has brought related earnings into Britain. Those earnings are not negligible; they are big league. I simply do not believe that people who have won us so much admiration and respect and earn us so much money, even though the profits may not show on each individual theatre's balance sheet, have suddenly all become inefficient wasters.
It is precisely at a time like this, when theatre activity itself is perceived to be at risk, that we need to look beyond the obvious, the most newsworthy problems, and lay sound foundations for the future. My noble friend Lady Birk has mentioned the Theatres Trust. I have been involved with that organisation ever since its foundation. Now that the Arts Council seems no longer to be taking much interest in buildings, I think it must work with the Theatres Trust—the two organisations will work well together—in trying to make sure that we do something about the essential basic organisation. We cannot have good theatre if there are no theatres. There is a danger of neglect in this area. I am glad to say that the Theatres Trust is expanding its interest and is being increasingly recognised for so doing.
I have another small pat on the head for the Government. They have recognised the existence of

597
the Theatres Trust, and that organisation is now accepted by the Government as being a valuable organisation. I hope that in future the theatre buildings will be better looked after than they have been in the past. That applies equally to whether the building is currently privately or publicly owned. Theatres must be preserved, and the question of their ownership is quite immaterial.
We have seen the theatre make wonderful progress in recent times. There is amazing potential. As the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, said in his most notable maiden speech—I join other noble Lords in congratulating him—there is an opportunity here which must not be neglected. Some theatres are now reappearing. The Hackney Empire, for example, is now in productive use. It was sometimes called the "sleeping beauty" and one sometimes wondered whether this sleeping beauty would ever reawaken at all. We must not say that because a theatre goes through a bad patch it is therefore gone forever and we need not worry about it. We must worry about all the theatres with which our country is so well provided.
Theatre is a complex organism in which every part depends on every other part. Scale is important; so is continuity. The greater the pool of skills and the better the distribution of venues, the healthier the activity will be. If any part is neglected, or if the continuity of tradition is interrupted, the whole fragile apparatus is put at risk. It certainly cannot be assumed that when we finally decide to restore support the activity and energy will instantly reappear. It is therefore vitally important that we keep going.
When I was Arts Minister 15 years ago I reminded the Cabinet of what Jennie Lee had said was needed. She said it was coherence, imagination and generosity. What has been said in this debate makes it clear that these three necessities are still not entirely unrecognised. There are those who see the necessity here. I hope against hope that the Government will not exclude throwing money at the problem. This is something which everyone is always instructed not to do, but as concerns the arts it seems to me that throwing money at them is much more productive than recrimination or advice.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the performing arts attract 17 million people a year. Pre-eminently they depend on the genius and commitment of the artist, rich in talent, poor in reward. Their sustenance and support depend on the wisdom, efficiency, expertise and independence of the Arts Council. Are they safe in its hands? I must confess to some doubt, although I hasten to assure the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, that I am a lifelong opponent of capital punishment.
Today the council seems but a shadow of what it was when I knew it under the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the only chairman of the past five not to come to this House, surprisingly, Kenneth Robinson. The council has slid off now to the obscurity of Great Peter Street,
598
insulated from the artists and the public which it exists to serve. No longer are there those rigorous, lively, monthly debates between department heads and panel chairmen and councillors that were the catalyst of our decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would say, in our age. Now the council communes with the chief executive alone and its decisions appear to come down from the Government.
"It's my duty", says Mr. Mellor, "to ensure proper distribution of funds". "I have decided", says Mr. Luce, "that the bulk of clients should go to regional boards chaired by my nominees; and the council's role is to be purely strategic", formulating what he calls a national policy for the arts—ten boards replicating 10 times the decimated and economical expertise of the council. There is no audible squeak about all this from the unseen and unheard councillors, of whom two appear to be practising artists and eight businessmen. I fear that this emasculated council will become a body of bureaucrats liaising, assessing, monitoring, reporting, targeting and pumping—pumping hot air.
This year's annual report of the Arts Council is not encouraging: a glossy format with pages of upbeat and anodyne articles. Of the revolution in the administration of the arts, the anxieties reflected in the resignation of Luke Rittner and the RSC's abandonment of the Barbican there is no mention. Of the desperate plight of regional theatres, the demise of Kent Opera and the National Opera crisis there is not a word. The crucial question of local authority finance is ignored. As for sponsorship in a recession, there is no place in the report. What do we find?—a fine photo of the noble Lord with Mrs. Thatcher, hardly, I fear, at arm's length.
The national arts strategy will,
"identify the shape and feel of the arts in the period leading up to the millenium … seeking ways to harness and energise the creative talent of the nation".
It will be,
"a 10 year programme for the refurbishment of the cultural fabric of the nation, including the cathedrals"—
the cathedrals, my Lords; the Arts Council? I note that the council's new premises were indeed taken over from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and that, ironically, they carry on the door a statue of St. Luke. Surely it is the deficits, not the cathedrals, that need to be addressed by the Arts Council.
One can have a national strategy for bureaucrats, but for the arts, never! The performing arts are unpredictable; genius and talent rise and fall, succeed and fail, without respect for packaging, marketing or cultural apartheid. Arts organisations need and want advice, assistance and, above all, the protection of a central independent council in the role of the artists' champion, responding to ideas and able to stand up to central and local political pressures. It must share in the evolution of work, it must have an international dimension and it must be housed in the cultural capital of the nation, which could so easily become the cultural capital of Europe and possibly even of the world.
I read that the translation of the new Minister for the Arts from Chief Whip to the arts is to him like moving from running a prison to running a brothel.

599
That sounds to me as if we can expect an improvement in arts funding. I welcome the perceived virility of the new Minister. I beseech him through the noble Viscount who will reply to the debate to give the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, a hands-on job, funding all the principal performance arts organisations, to give the council a role which will continue to attract staff and council members of the very highest calibre and, above all, to restore to it its independence and its arm's length stance.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I feel a little tame and rather like the tail end of the Lord Mayor's Show. I cannot help thinking that it was a little unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, spoke before the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and that he would no doubt have wished, if he had been otherwise placed, to say something in reply and perhaps break the convention of abstaining from controversy in a maiden speech. However that may be, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for the opportunity of this debate. I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate. As it happens, together with other Members of your Lordship's House, I had an appointment with the Minister for the Arts, so perhaps I may be forgiven. I therefore missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and half of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I shall remedy that by reading their speeches in the morning.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, and I congratulate him on it. He did not deal with many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, but he hardly could have done so uncontroversially. It was an excellent speech and I am sure we shall hear him on many occasions. We should be grateful to him for taking on a fascinating and very difficult job which I did in the 1970s when it was a great deal easier than it is today.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, dealt with the problems of the national companies and so I shall not deal with them. However, I should like to emphasise one point. Although we urge the necessity for plural funding we must recognise that funds from the private sector are inevitably variable. They depend not only on the state of the economy but on the taste very often of the heads of those institutions which make the grant. In the case of our permanent arts companies, the great national companies—the orchestras and so on, the landmarks of our artistic scene—private sector funding, because it is variable, is appropriate only as a contribution to variable costs. If the nation wants these things, their fixed costs must be met by the state. What can then be left in part to private funding are the variables—programming, new productions and the like.
There is a great parallel here with the museums, where the cost of maintaining the buildings and conserving and presenting the collections should be shouldered by the state, leaving the private sector to help with acquisitions and exhibitions. To my mind, the state's responsibility for overheads should be
600
indexed for inflation and repairs and maintenance should never be allowed to fall into arrears as they have been. Only the variable costs should be subject to economy in bad times.
I want also to say something about regional affairs. Nearly a year ago we debated the proposed restructuring of arts funding and the devolution then envisaged. I believe that the committee to advise the Minister on what should be funded centrally and what regionally by the proposed regional arts boards is still sitting. In that debate, while supporting the principle of devolution, I urged that the Arts Council should not lose all its regional clients but fund directly probably some 40 of the most important arts companies in the regions, especially those doing much work outside their own regions and above all those which also work abroad and have an international reputation. After that debate I was encouraged to believe that this would be the case but I am not sure how this reorganisation is going—whether the Minister's advisory committee has reported and whether any noises are coming out of it. I hope that the Minister will have some information for us this evening.
What I do know is that those in charge of the most important regional companies are very apprehensive about being devolved to the new regional arts boards. I should like the Minister to tell us what consultation there has been with the major revenue clients other than the regional arts associations before establishing the criteria for devolving those clients.
Your Lordships may recall that the Minister for the Arts—then Mr. Luce and subsequently Mr. Mellor—laid down criteria for devolution. They were, first, that excellence in the arts would be maintained and enhanced. We can all subscribe to that; it is like saying that one is against sin. The second criterion was that regional structures must be capable of assessing and monitoring the organisations devolved. What is crucial is that the officers doing the assessing should have the necessary experience to assess what are in effect national companies located in the regions. Those bodies deserve to be assessed by national criteria. In my judgment that is best done at national level. They deserve the close attention of the best officers in the Arts Council, and it is no good expecting that all 11 regional arts boards will be staffed by officers of the experience which should be available at the centre. Furthermore, the Arts Council itself will be gravely handicapped if its own officers are not in direct contact with what is happening in the regions. That is a very important point.
I have talked to the chairman of the Hallé Orchestra, which, though its home is Manchester, is certainly a national orchestra. He tells me that the orchestra gives more concerts outside Manchester and the North West than inside. Last season it gave 95 concerts outside and 75 inside. It receives much more local authority support outside the North West—last season, 042,000—than inside—last season, £334,000. The fear is that the local authorities in the North West, all under pressure to cut expenditure, will say, "We've got to give to the new arts board north west so why

601
should we contribute also to the Hallé directly?" The arts board north west may well say, "Why should the Hallé spend 60 per cent. of its time and by implication 60 per cent. of our arts board money outside the North West?" And finally the arts board north west may well say, 'We support two orchestras, Liverpool and Manchester. Each spends less than half of its time in this region. Let's support one, and let it give all its concerts in our region". To regionalise such orchestras as the Hallé seems madness to me. I hope that wisdom will prevail.
Finally, I have just enough time to say a word about Ministers for the Arts. In my five years at the Arts Council I reported to four Ministers, two Conservative and two Labour. While broad strategy on funding was constantly discussed, none of them ever suggested to me how much or to whom grants should be made, let alone gave instructions. Is this changing? I noticed, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, Mr. Mellor saying he would concern himself with the detailed application of the enhancement grants, I suppose he thought that, having argued with the Treasury for extra cash, it ought to have been spent in accordance with his argument. I just wish that he had trusted the Arts Council: he could have done so, and also trusted the basis of the system.
I believe I detect a less hands-on approach with Mr. Renton. The fact is that, though timely in national terms, the arts grant has such a high profile that Ministers for the Arts are bound to feel concerned, and they are tempted to interfere. When they do so the arm's length principle goes for nothing. Ministers for the Arts must stick to broad policy and keep their hands off the decisions for grants; otherwise the Arts Council will become an advisory body—and who will want to serve on it then?
6.51 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, we are invited by the terms of the Motion to consider problems affecting the performing arts. I should like to spend a few minutes considering two problems which have caused me concern. The first is the appropriate amount of government subsidy to the arts. This seems, in the eye of the public, to be assessed by relating any increase that the Government offer in the total grant to the grant which was offered in the previous year. If it is an increase in excess of the cost of living the Government are praised; if it is below they are generally abused; but the essential base is last year's grant.
It is very difficult from that sort of base to assess whether this country is in fact putting enough money into the arts as a whole compared with our neighbours. It is much easier to make a comparison, say, with the armaments industry and the outlay on armaments of our rivals and possible enemies, in percentage terms, than it is to make the same comparison in arts expenditure. Of course, the Government's outlay is not the only one. As the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, said in his most excellent maiden speech, the local authorities themselves put in something like—I think I am quoting correctly—£200
602
million. Of course, a large part of that has come directly or indirectly from the Government, and so comparison is difficult.
It is fairly easy to compare specific artistic projects. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the Royal Opera House which compares its receipts from governments with what other major opera houses in Europe receive from their governments. Comparisons show that it receives less but that it puts on many more performances. However, that sort of direct comparison is much more difficult in other forms of the performing arts. Nations vary in their enthusiasm and in the tradition they have in respect of individual arts. We might say that so far as Britain is concerned the theatre is perhaps our chief glory. We might say with some confidence that our theatre is as good as, and probably better than, any in the Western world. The Italians might make the same claim for opera and the Germans would certainly make it for all forms of music.
I can remember when I was stationed in Essen for three months—Essen being a not particularly distinguished town in the Ruhr—that the town managed from its own funds and from funds given by the government to put on a continuous programme of opera right through the winter and at the same time to maintain a symphony orchestra which gave regular and very high quality performances. I doubt whether there is a provincial town in this country which could equal that. It merely illustrates the priority given by the Germans to music. If we are to put money into the arts should we, as the military preach, reinforce success, or should we spread the arts subsidy, as we have, fairly thinly over all our performing arts?
The second problem concerns the number of people who actually attend artistic performances. The Arts Council report contains the results of a study which was either commissioned by it or adopted by it. The report states that about 25 per cent. of the population attend the theatre. That is a very reasonable and acceptable percentage; but the percentage of those who attend opera and ballet is a little over 6 per cent. I am a confirmed opera lover but I wonder how far we can justify the enormous expenditure in subsidies which we have to make to maintain our operatic standards at their existing level. It is true that the same report shows that operatic attendances have increased by 15 per cent. in the past four years. That is a source of great encouragement, but of course it is from a fairly low numerical base.
Those are two of the problems. I believe that we must try to look ahead with a mixture of enthusiasm, hope and faith in order to justify the expenditures we are now considering. Education is one of the main grounds on which we should invest in the arts. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned a rather fine form of reinforcing the life force. I believe that we educate our young because those of us of a certain age have derived enormous pleasure all our lives from the arts and we desperately wish them to have the same opportunities. For that, I for one am certainly prepared to pay my taxes.
Lastly, I should like to mention the element of national pride. There are certain things—buildings,

603
perhaps, rather than performances—in which the whole country can take a certain pride. For example, the National Opera House in Sydney is a source of great pride to all Australians, most of whom have no intention of ever going inside it. The same is true of our Royal Opera House. It now badly needs refurbishment and enlargement. I am not sure what stage the negotiations have now reached or whether they are faltering in any way for lack of funds; but if they are I most earnestly exhort the Government to step in and offer whatever funds they can make available.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I must join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on a remarkable maiden speech. It was so fluent and so authoritative that I feel he really deserves to lead a more effective Arts Council. I had some sympathy with the delightfully gentle observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. We have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for opening the debate in such a characteristically brilliant way. I opened a similar debate some four years ago. I am not sure, I must confess, whether much has changed. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will have more effect: he is absolutely right in saying that many difficult choices lie ahead. His point on renewal capital is central to the problems that exist.
However, because we have to make difficult choices, it does not mean that they should be made against a tighter financial background. They should be made against the background philosophy of fundamental support for the arts. We should not yield an inch on that.
British society is blessed with some of the greatest artistic performers in the world, but it is always reluctant to pay for them. By international standards, British governments, both central and local, are mean. Cambridge has been mentioned. Edinburgh is notorious. And there are a number of others. Many of the most mean are accidentally Conservative local governments. The Government could therefore take a lead and ask them not to penny pinch.
British companies are less mean, and they are improving. The honours system could be used even more to encourage support for the arts. I look forward to a time when donations rank equally with those to the Conservative Party in securing admission to this House.
British individuals are mean. Speaking personally, as someone who has been connected for over a dozen years with a leading London orchestra in trying to raise funds, I am bound to say that the established rich in Britain, not unconnected with this House—what is called old money—do not give. The turnout today is quite good, but it is not as impressive as that for Monday's debate on racing. That debate saw an excellent turnout. I wonder, however, whether it shows a correct sense of priority.
Sponsorship and the giving of money in Britain now depend heavily upon two sources—Japanese
604
firms in this country, to which we should offer great appreciation, and, as always, the Jewish community. Without them, British music would be in serious trouble. Our society, our Government and our education system influence values. They must give a lead and set an example so that giving to the arts is seen as a positive good and a social norm.
The Government's proposals for delegating support for the arts to the regions were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. The Government have made four major exceptions: the two opera companies, Covent Garden and the English National Opera, and the two leading theatres, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal National Theatre. Those companies are described as national flagships because of their national and international standing. I would not argue against that. However, I should like to ask why no orchestras are described as flagships. It is very damaging to our great orchestras that they should appear to be denigrated in that way. One accepts that it is a problem which occurs in any flagship system. But there are several orchestras in London of great national and international reputation. No other city in the world can compete with London as a centre of orchestral music. Berlin or New York cannot compete with what we have here. It is a strength that we should enforce and not denigrate.
Our orchestras travel internationally. The first example of excellence given by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, was the London Symphony's triumphal tour of Japan. If one looks at the league table internationally, our best orchestras are as good as, and probably rank higher than, our opera companies. To classify them merely as "regional" damages their ability to attract great artists and great conductors. The great conductors of the world often accept less money when they come to London and would not wish to conduct a regional orchestra.
I look forward to hearing the noble Viscount's comments. We note that the new Minister for the Arts is reconsidering the policy of delegation. I ask through the noble Viscount on the Front Bench that the Minister should reconsider a curious anomaly. I wonder whether it would not be logical to designate two orchestras as flagships.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I speak as the most veteran member of artistic administration. When I reflect briefly on the jobs that I have held, I must have a high degree of responsibility for the chaos that now exists. However, I have not come here to apologise. As a veteran I am very pleased that I have been able to sit here since 2.30 p.m., waiting to hear Lord Palumbo's speech. I regard that time as being well spent. His speech gave me a feeling of confidence that the arts are in safe hands.
A number of points have arisen in the debate that require more than seven minutes to deal with, but I should like to mention two matters of some importance. One of them was illustrated with characteristic vigour and colour by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. He referred to the quite appalling

605
attacks that have been made on the independence of the Arts Council. It is frightening to discover that more recent Ministers for the Arts have not had the least idea of the basic foundation of the Arts Council. The dual principle of independence was a novelty to them and, having heard about it, they were outraged that it should exist.
The Arts Council has never been popular with the Civil Service and when the Civil Service finally detected that it had escaped the leash and was free to spend the money as it liked, it determined to do something to stop it. I do not think that there has been a more stupid arrangement than that which delegates the responsibility for distributing the money, and for watching over and administering the arts, to 10 or 11 regional authorities. If the slightest moment of reflection had been given to that situation, it would have been apparent that it could only mean a thorough decline in artistic standards.
The Arts Council is one of the great British institutions and we ought to be horrified at any notion of dismantling it. The Arts Council has a vast number of very well informed committees to advise it. There are committees for every form of artistic discipline. Where will the 11 new regional authorities get the committees? They do not exist. People of the quality of those who have willingly volunteered to serve on the Arts Council cannot be multiplied by 10, but no one has thought of that point. There has obviously been a great determination to curtail the independence of the Arts Council.
Recently I had the advantage of speaking at some length with the new Minister and he inspires me with a good deal of confidence because he told me that he was reflecting on what to do about the delegation scheme. He conveyed to me, without saying so, that he was minded to make considerable changes in the proposals. That is the most encouraging thing that I have heard for a long time. I have been greatly exercised by a feeling that an institution that we had all served, respected and admired, was in danger of being dismantled in favour of 10 new organisations that have no track record at all and which could not hope to have the facilities that have been developed by the Arts Council over the 50 years or so that it has been in existence.
The statesman from Wales expressed criticism that the chairman and members of Arts Council boards were not paid. It would be very wrong if they were paid. There is already enough criticism of the expenditure of the Arts Council. It is required to restrict expenditure as much as possible. If 11 new chairmen are paid, the cries of rage that will arise from the deprived beneficiaries cannot be imagined. I earnestly hope that any such notion will be dismissed.
I feel that the emphasis on money is just a little excessive. The most important consideration in the arts is quality. Quality cannot be bought with money. Of course, that is not to say that I believe you can run orchestras, theatres and ballet and opera companies without it. However, money should not be allowed to become an obsession. In my view it has recently become an obsession so far as concerns the Arts
606
Council and its supporters. Everywhere you go, everyone is talking about how the extra money can be found.
I should like to give a word of warning about the suggestion for a national lottery. If the Arts Council really thinks that if we had a lottery it would be the first beneficiary, it had better think again. During the debate which took place in this House on horseracing just the other day, it became clear that racing has its eye on such a pot. If we stop to consider the number of people who have their eyes on that pot, it is obvious that the Arts Council must look for other sources.
We must not do anything which will enable the Arts Council to consider itself alibied in relation to subsidising the arts. A lottery is another form of alibi. A form of alibi which was very useful but excessively used was the question of private and commercial funds. I am a great believer in an alternative source of support for the arts other than from the Arts Council. There must be a kind of court of appeal for someone who has failed to get his orchestra, his novel or his play subsidised by the council. Such a person should at least be able to apply to another organisation which could provide him with private moneys. That is a most important consideration. However, again, it has become an obsession with the Government—and not this Government alone—who are constantly pointing out the vast resources which are available from commercial institutions. If you examine the matter closely and scientifically, such vast resources do not exist. It is quite certain that you could not substitute private funds for the public funds which are submitted because there are just not enough of them.
I should like now to give your Lordships one instance of the importance of public subsidy in relation to the theatre. I visited my first West End theatre at the age of six. It was a play called "The Garden of Allah". I do not believe that anyone present in the Chamber is old enough to remember it. However, a study of that time would show that the theatre was indeed in a deplorable situation. Almost every play which was produced was set in upper-class drawing rooms and dealt with the scandals that took place in them.
I was present when, for the first time ever, the West End theatre saw fit to put on a Cockney play. It was called "Low Tide" and was written by an East-End bookseller. It was a remarkable play. However, it took years before the theatre was prepared to make such a change. In the hands of commercial interests, there is no doubt that the theatre was in a sad and unsatisfactory state. If one studied the theatre lists of that time, no evidence would be found of any Shakespeare play being presented. I do not want to suggest that all valuable dramatic literature was expelled from the scene. Of course, Bernard Shaw works went on being produced after a brisk exchange with the censors. Similarly, Ibsen was played after an equally brisk exchange. However, the notion that the theatre was an adequate instrument to portray the dramatic talent of this country is completely fallacious.

607
I believe—I hope rightly—that the Arts Council is now in very safe hands. I urge the chairman of the council and its members to protect to the last drop of their blood, and to the last pound in their bank account, the liberties which we have extracted with great difficulty and which the present Government, not brazenly or wantonly, but out of sheer ignorance, are neglecting. The Arts Council's dual policy, which has kept it going and caused it to be admired all over the world, has been that there should be no governmental interference with the council's decisions and that the function of government is merely to supply money.
The report in question is an abominable document to many civil servants. But I believe that this most dangerous thing which is about to happen is the product of the imagination of a civil servant. The line between the Arts Council and civil servants is not a strong one. I believe that I have addressed your Lordships for more than seven minutes. In the circumstances, I should like to say once again that I wish the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, every success. If the debate has served the purpose of awakening him and the other members of the Arts Council to the dangers which exist, it will not have been in vain.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, about two decades ago I moved a debate in this House on a report which had just been published on the Arts Council. Having heard the quality of speeches tonight, I can only say about myself, "What an upstart"—especially as I coined a phrase at that time "Penicillin before Puccini". I hope that that does not sound too philistine. However, as I have a special interest in both the health service and the arts it is a question to some extent of priorities. There are 60 million people in this country. Penicillin is a life saver; of course, Puccini is not a life saver, although life without him would be very dull.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the London orchestras are first-class. I entirely agree with him. I have one particularly good friend who used to be a leading violinist in the London Symphony Orchestra. I too believe that our orchestras can hold their own against those of any other country. The same principle applies to the English National Opera. Anyone who has seen its performance of "Hansel and Gretel" will agree, certainly in the musical sense, that it was a treat from the first to the last bar. The standards achieved in its music, although not always in its settings, are absolutely first-class.
I should like to say a few words about the regional arts. There is a country called Scotland. The Perth and Pitlochry theatres, with which I am mildly acquainted, have put on some absolutely first-class shows. They only receive a grant of about £360,000 per year. The Pitlochry Theatre in particular presents plays of exceptionally high quality. Those who know Scotland well will agree that it is very much a tourist area. Indeed, a large number of overseas visitors go to Perth and Pitlochry and of course to other parts of Scotland. I should like at this stage to put in a plea for the
608
Scottish National Orchestra which has toured widely, as has Scottish Opera, which has some marvellous singers. Mention has already been made of Wales, and everyone knows that the young person who won the Young Musician of the Year competition not so long ago came from Wales.
I believe that we should also take the regional theatres into consideration. I am especially concerned with the Thorndike Theatre in Leatherhead which has survived through some dire times and which has received very generous financial benefaction from the Kenwright family. The theatre has now been revamped and the company puts on high quality productions before they are transferred to the West End. The same applies to our choirs. I should like to put in a personal plug at this stage because my wife has sung in our local choral society in Surrey for 20 years. Last year the society visited Germany and gave two concerts in Cologne Cathedral. Very shortly the choir from Cologne is to visit Surrey to sing with our society in Mendelssohn's great oratorio, "Elijah". I mention that because I think that it is often believed that the finest singers come from France, Italy or Spain. That is no longer true. I should be the last to denigrate singers such as Placido Domingo or José Carreras, but again I wish to be personal and bring up names like Gwyneth Jones, who has sung all over the world. We are a musical country and that should be recognised when we consider the arts.
Funding is rather like the diagnosis and the cure: we all wish to see almost unlimited money going to the arts, particularly the regional arts. It is not only Covent Garden and the English National Opera that give pleasure. Many people will have seen Opera for All, the group which travels all over England, Scotland and Wales to districts where people cannot always reach the cities. It plays an enormously important role.
I wish to associate myself with the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his excellent maiden speech. Perhaps more consideration could be given to the regions because tourism is a vital aspect of funding for this country. At present it faces problems for reasons which are well known, but not all tourists go to London. They go to Scotland, Wales and the small towns. The main word in the Motion is "problems". When we allocate funds there are problems anyway. But my final plea is this. Yes, of course London must be funded. It is the capital city. But the regions are also important.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to an area of the performing arts which is sometimes regarded as less significant than the traditional forms of opera, theatre and so on. It is perhaps worthy of note that we have so far heard 14 speakers and I am the first to propose to refer to films. I qualify that by pointing out that in his splendid opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was good enough to couple the film industry with the other arts in his concluding remarks. However, it is fair to say that I am the first speaker to venture to deal with the film industry.

609
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said in this House recently that the arts in this country are always undervalued. I do not know that I go along totally with that, but the words can be justly applied to the attitude of government towards films. The government have seemed always to take the view that there is no reason why the film industry should need support. Their minds are much directed towards the rather glitzy Hollywood atmosphere where the film industry has been totally self-supporting throughout its days.
It is sometimes overlooked that Hollywood has a vast domestic market for which to provide films. This country is in the same position as other European countries which have to wrestle with a small market. Therefore, the industry requires some form of external assistance, which is more readily forthcoming, I am bound to say, in European film-making countries than in our own.
In the limited time at my disposal I wish to concentrate on the production aspect of films which unfortunately has been undergoing a serious decline. It is universally recognised in this country that we have a tremendous wealth of talent. I am familiar with it from my former chairmanship of the National Film and Television School and the British Film Institute. One fact is clear: if we do not have a solid base of feature film production there will be a brain drain —it is already taking place—which will create a cultural and commercial disaster in this sphere.
Films are an extremely high risk industry and expensive to produce. I confine myself to what are usually described as low or medium budget films which can be said to cost at present between £2 million and £6 million. In the light of that, there is a problem which has perhaps been added to by the extraordinary speed with which one Minister with responsibility for the film industry has succeeded another. We have had 11 since 1979, which has made it extremely difficult to establish continuity. Nevertheless, a hopeful development occurred last June when the then Prime Minister decided to hold a seminar at No. 10 to discuss with leading figures in the industry the whole position of the film industry. Since then, there has been a change both or Prime Minister and of the Minister responsible for the industry. One wonders whether the same degree of commitment remains.
I ask that because one valuable development might be through encouraging British co-productions with other European producers. The Government have already backed out of any support for the Council of Europe's fund for that purpose. However, unexpectedly, this seminar produced a proposal for a £5 million fund over three years to attract European money. I was saddened to read in The Times yesterday that the DTI now appears to be pouring cold water over the scheme. I hope, therefore, that the discussions which I understand are soon to take place will nevertheless produce a fruitful outcome.
In the limited time that remains to me I wish to refer briefly to one of the main matters which emerged from the seminar: how to find more effective ways of attracting new investment. It was agreed that subsidies
610
or handouts were not wanted but that certain fiscal and financial incentives were. Three proposals are put forward for this purpose and I can mention them only briefly. First is relief for new investment in UK film production; secondly, a method of writing off expenditure incurred in producing films; and, thirdly, taxing visiting artists. There are ways in which, by reasonable modifications of the existing law, these matters can be brought into focus and considerably assist with finding investment for new films.
I conclude by saying that it is recognised on all sides that fresh incentives are needed if this vital industry is to be restored to health. I express the hope that the indications given by the previous Prime Minister's initiative will be likely to produce helpful consequences for the film industry.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, first I wish to mention that fertile seedbed of performing artists, the Royal Academy of Music. This deservedly has a reputation as a centre of excellence. It is, however, very small, internationally speaking. Its total income of £3 million is equal only to the annual profit of, say, the Juilliard in New York. In Paris a conservatoire has been built that is far bigger than any of our colleges or our academy. The conservatoire cost £40 million to build and it was entirely paid for by the French taxpayer. I dare say that New York, Paris and Leipzig wish to take over London's enviable position as the music capital of the world. Thus they expand their colleges and they offer other carrots such as free tuition. So far, London is maintaining its position. But the coming of the single market in 1992 will prove a danger. It would be sad indeed if our brightest young musicians went abroad and London lost its pre-eminent position.
The Royal Academy is our oldest music college. Only rarely has it relied entirely on government money. In the 19th century all funding was private. In the 20th century the funding was entirely public only for a short period in the 1970s. Presently the Royal Academy enjoys mixed funding. The private funding comes from its own Royal Academy of Music Foundation, while the public funding comes from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. At first glance both of those sources look healthy. The foundation has raised a respectable £4.5 million. As regards the public funding, the principal, Sir David Lumsden, said:
"The PCFC have announced that, unlike most other educational establishments within the sector, the Academy will receive in 1991–2 an increase on the previous year's grant rather than suffer a reduction in funds. We are very pleased at this outcome. It vindicates the Academy's stance".
Therefore one might say that the glory of the garden lies just south of Regent's Park.
The glory also lies in star teachers such as Robert Tear, Anne Sophie Mutter, Hans Werner Henze, Lynn Harrell and Sir Colin Davies. Those teachers are international names who have trained up young genii which noble Lords may not yet know of. However,

611
they certainly will know of them in five years' time. I refer to Peter Sheppard, Neil Davies, Mark Wigglesworth and Evelyn Glennie. Perhaps the academy's greatest achievement was to attract the Stenzl brothers from West Germany. I maintain that those two men are Germany's finest young pianists. Noble Lords lucky enough to go to Salzburg for the Mozart bicentenary will hear them playing his double piano concerto.
The Stenzls chose London because of its pre-eminent position, but they chose the academy because of a star piano teacher, Stephen Bishop Kovacevich. Would that I could continue in such a hopeful vein. However, I cannot. Stephen Bishop has now left the academy. Anne Sophie Mutter will leave in eight days' time. Hans Werner Henze and Robert Tear will also leave. Lynn Harrell leaves in September and Sir Colin Davies will leave next year. The academy can no longer afford to keep them. The private funds that paid their salaries are now all needed to maintain the students.
It costs £6,500 a year to fund a student. Of that sum only £2,500 funds the tuition. The other £4,000 is meant to fund simple living, which in London is very expensive. Soon it will be possible, and tempting, for a British student to collect his grant and take off for Paris where the living is cheaper and the teaching is free. The academy accepts that the ability to compete with the huge foreign conservatoires is paramount. For that financial ability to be real, my noble friend Lord Gowrie has recommended in his report that a simple extra sum of £ 1,000 per student per year should be made available. It would indeed be a good thing if the Government could provide that by central block grant.
The source of that extra funding could so easily be a national lottery. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has already referred to that. The per capita contribution would be considerable. I know, for instance, that the average Spaniard spends £1.20 per week on his national lottery while the average Irishman spends £2.20. There is an additional reason for having a British lottery in that it would pre-empt the attractive offers to partake in foreign lotteries that are already flooding into this country. At the moment Her Majesty's Customs intercepts 3 million lottery letters every week coming in from the Continent. However, after 1992—that is exactly when the British student will so easily be able to take his music grant abroad —that Customs machinery will be dismantled and we shall be bombarded with foreign lottery material offering prizes of at least £1 million.
It therefore seems to me to be almost a necessity to introduce a British lottery. At a contribution of only £2 per person per week its annual gross income would not be a mere £1 billion, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has said. Its gross annual income would be £5 billion. That is more than enough for every kind of performing artist and—the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will be pleased to hear this—for every performing horse.
612
It is good to be on top and to be the best of the bunch. London is just that in the world of music. London must continue in its pre-eminence. However, we pay our music colleges rather little. With the new freedom of the 1992 market we shall become second best, unless we turn that freedom into a challenge. We must nurture our young musicians. We can at least double their funding by means of a lottery. We can rival Paris and New York.
It is odd to think of that former Academician, Sir Arthur Sullivan, setting to music 100 years ago words from Patience (or Bunthorne's Bride) that are so apt today. He made Bunthorne sing:
"By the advice of my solicitor I've put myself up to be raffled for".
For Bunthorne, read Norman Lamont, and we are home and dry.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for interrupting the beginning of his speech. I must also apologise to the noble Viscount if I fail to follow him on the advantages and disadvantages, intricacies and threats, of lotteries pouring into this country from abroad. I am sure that we should look at what the noble Viscount said with great attention. I myself have no very strong views on that matter.
Like other noble Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing this debate. I agree entirely with the message that he sought to convey. It will allow me not to go over familiar ground which he covered so cogently. As I understood it, the noble Lord was saying that the challenge and the problems of the arts cannot be met without greater expenditure and that expenditure must come from the Government, at least in part. The noble Lord also said that he thought this was a bad time to ask for extra expenditure. I, on the contrary, remembering the message of the noble Lord's former colleague at King's College, Cambridge, Lord Keynes, believe that a recession is the right time to spend money. Therefore this is an excellent time to spend more money on the arts.
I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his excellent and eloquent maiden speech. I hope that the next debate on this subject will be opened by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson and replied to by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. I believe that that would even the scores. I hope, however, that the noble Lord has received a message from this House—that when we debated this subject in April 1990, almost a year ago, we were much concerned with the degree and form of devolution of the Arts Council which was then proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to that. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us where that matter now stands. The criticism of that plan made last April, and repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is extremely cogent.
The idea that one can have 10 federal bodies monitoring expenditure and other matters, and that this can be done efficiently and without an increase in

613
expenditure, seems to me nonsense. We must be told how that is proposed to be carried out. I would add that it is even more of a nonsense to have a federal structure where only five members of the federation are represented on the central council. What is the position of the other five members? Are they second-class members, or not members at all? How do they make the views of their constituencies known?
Another matter which we discussed and which has been mentioned in the debate today is that the position of the Arts Council was being eroded and emasculated—the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, referred to that—and its authority was being undermined. In my view, and I believe in the view of most of your Lordships, that situation is a serious blow to the administration of the arts in this country. To interfere in the Arts Council in that way would undermine the arm's length principle which is at the heart of the matter. Unless we maintain that arm's length principle the centralising tendencies of the Government, which we have seen exhibited in the words of Mr. Mellor and other recent Ministers for the Arts, will be rampant. If there is one subject that politicians are not qualified to talk about, still less act on, it is the arts. I have always had doubts as to whether one should have a Minister for the Arts. If one has such a Minister one must have a strong and independent Arts Council between him and the artists.
The second issue which has been raised in the debate is finance. I need not repeat the dramatic figures which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, set forth, comparing government support for the arts in this country with support for the arts by our neighbours in France. Germany and Denmark. The effect has been that our major national and other institutions have to find a far higher percentage of their revenue from the box office. In the case of Covent Garden, it is 58 per cent., as against 25 per cent. in Hamburg and 17 per cent. in Paris.
The consequence is obvious. It raises the price of seats inordinately and exorbitantly. It deprives the public, who are the taxpayers paying for those institutions in some part, of the possibility of visiting those venues. That in itself is a serious matter which deserves the Government's attention.
Finally, a decreasing proportion of expenditure will be provided by the Arts Council—40 per cent. next year—for the financing of a body such as Covent Garden. How is that gap to be filled? It was in order to fill the gap that sponsorship became so fashionable. That accorded very well with some of the ideas of the former Prime Minister and it introduced into the world of the arts an enterprise culture to eliminate what was seen as a welfare state and dependency culture. That was the message which sponsorship was to deliver.
We must remember certain things about sponsorship. It is not without its uses. It provides the icing on the cake. But it does not do other things. It cannot provide a reliable source of revenue. As its exponents readily admit, it is a form of advertising. That is how Luke Rittner and the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg,
614
described it. Those who use it will stop their sponsorship just as advertisers stop their advertising campaigns.
Sponsorship has a curious impact on the companies which become dependent on it. It affects their culture. They employ a large number of people who are unproductive in the sense that they have nothing to do with the arts but who are concerned with raising money. That section of the staff of the Royal Opera House has increased 50 per cent. in the past eight years. It also means that the boards of those companies are stuffed with rich businessmen who are there to touch other rich businessmen for money. That is not the principle on which the boards of opera houses should be appointed.
The message which this debate sends to the Government is a very simple one. No amount of administrative tinkering and reorganisation will resolve the problems which face the arts. It may make them worse but will not by itself make them better. Until the Government recognise that the arts, like so much else in this country, need investment and that the primary responsibility for that investment lies with the Government those problems will not be tackled.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we have had a splendid debate and we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing it. I am sure that he will be heartened and encouraged by the number of speakers and by the strength of feeling and power of utterance which the subject has evoked. On behalf of all of us on these Benches I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his most distinguished maiden speech. How eloquently he upheld the performances of our artists at home and abroad, and how fortifying were the figures he gave us.
It is clear that in your Lordships' House the performing arts (pace my noble friend Lord Jenkins) are not regarded as the icing on the cake or the frill around the cutlet, but are recognised as an integral part of the very stuff, texture and colour of our national life at all levels.
Yet has not this debate made one thing abundantly clear? Her Majesty's Government have no policy whatsoever on the performing arts in this country; or, rather, in the past 10 years they have had more arts policies than hot breakfasts. Recently, as one Minister for the Arts has succeeded another with lightning speed, the left hand has not known what the right hand was doing. Opera, music and theatre have been a political football and the arts have been, in Chaucer's immortal phrase:
"Now up, now down, like bucket in a well".
Mr. Richard Luce, towards the end of the period of comparative calm and sanity over which he presided, suddenly commissioned the Wilding Report. All powers were to be devolved to the regional arts associations (pace Lord Goodman). The ACGB was to be more important, but more impotent, and the performing arts were to flourish like the green bay tree

615
under local control, while screaming aloud for local sponsorship, or any other sponsorship—any port in a storm.
Then, to our infinite regret, exit Mr. Luce, stage left. Enter, through a trap door with fire and smoke, Mr. David Mellor. The Wilding Report retires to the back burner, the chairmen of the regional arts associations are to be appointed by the Minister, central control is strengthened, and we kiss devolution goodbye. Out of his sleeve the new Minister produces the "Enhancement Fund"—not new money, but a top slice of his budget, as my noble friend Lady Birk pointed out. The strong shall be rewarded while the weak go to the wall. There will he no lame ducks waddling around this marketplace!
But before he had time to turn round Mr. Mellor was whisked away to higher pastures, and his part is played for this performance (with remarkably little rehearsal) by Mr. Renton. Mr. Renton is less convinced than his predecessor of the virtues of the enhancement fund, and he varies its distribution. He seems less overtly interventionist, more content to let the Arts Council control the distribution of resources, more at ease with the trusty old arm's length principle. Perhaps there may be a "steady state" theory in Government policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, profoundly hoped.
But, within weeks we learn that one very high profile client, the Welsh National Opera, is in deep financial trouble and facing a deficit of some £842,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, this is a very serious matter. The Arts Council is not disposed to throw it a lifebelt, and we steel ourselves to watch the inexorable progress of the iron steamroller of market forces as it crushes this delicate flower in its path. But, surprise, surprise! Enter the Good Fairy, in the shape of the Secretary of State for Wales, who waves his magic wand and the deficit vanishes in a flash of light. For this relief much thanks, as the noble Lord Crickhowell, explained.
What price the arm's length principle now? From the Minister on this matter we hear only an ear-splitting silence. What a policy! What a pantomime! The inconsistency, the shilly-shallying, the lack of purpose or plan could hardly be better illustrated than by the debilitating mess attendant upon the premature winding down of Greater London Arts and the continuing delays in setting up the new London Arts Board to take its place. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies. The momentum built up over years has been lost. The London Boroughs Grant Committee (which has publicly determined the arts as its lowest priority) failed on 6th February to set a budget, leaving dozens of its clients at real risk of liquidation. Now the Arts Council has had to step in to take direct control of London's arts funding while the confusion is resolved.
The message which comes through loud and clear is that funding of the arts is important, but consistency of policy is equally vital if the performing arts are to know where they are going. The message is equally clear that the arts as a whole will never flourish in this
616
country so long as the Government regard the post of Minister for the Arts as no more than a waiting room for a likely lad.
The Minister will of course tell us in his reply that Government funding for the performing arts has increased by x per cent. in real terms over whatever period of years fits his case best.
I could reply that it has been reliably estimated that, excluding replacement and earmarked funding, the core funding of the arts is now down to 78 per cent. of what it was in 1978–79. And we shall both be profoundly unimpressed with each other's figures. Never before have we heard of blackouts in the Barbican at the same time that we hear of the death of Kent Opera and of the Liverpool Playhouse calling in the receivers in two months' time, and so on and on.
As has been evident from all sides of your Lordships' House, there is a growing demand for the performing arts in this country. Yet, as Milton put it:
"The hungry sheep look up, and arc not fed".
So far as concerns the citizens of this country, the Government would do well to remember that man does not live by bread alone.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating today's debate on the performing arts. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his interesting and informative maiden speech. I know that all noble Lords will look forward to hearing him in future debates in this House, particularly in his important role as chairman of the Arts Council. I shall endeavour to reply later in my speech to the learned contributions of other noble Lords. I have to confess that probably their experience in these matters is rather greater than mine.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, seeks to draw attention to the problems facing the performing arts. With great respect perhaps I may suggest that attention might also have been drawn to the extraordinary growth, health and vigour of this great national asset. I am not suggesting that all is well, but the fact is that over the past decade the arts in Great Britain have gone from strength to strength. That is particularly true of the performing arts. I commend to your Lordships the most recent annual report of the Arts Council of Great Britain. It provides an informed and balanced overview of the state of the nation's theatre, music and dance. Far from being a litany of gloom and despair, it is a record of achievement, confidence and even cautious optimism.
In his personal contribution to the report the secretary general of the Arts Council suggests—rightly in my view —that the arts in Great Britain are enjoying a renaissance. Certainly in terms of quality, diversity, accessibility and volume, the arts have reached unprecedented levels. In 1989–90 about 17 million adults (nearly 40 per cent. of the population) attended plays, concerts, the opera, ballet and exhibitions supported by the Arts Council. That was about 1 million more than four years ago.

617
There is plenty of other good news. Since it was founded the Arts Council has helped establish five new dance companies, seven new opera companies, 34 new regional theatre companies, 30 new theatre buildings and 10 new art and photography galleries. There will be over 600 arts festivals in Britain this year excluding amateur events. What other capital city can boast four great international orchestras, a national theatre with three performing stages, the Royal Shakespeare Company making a welcome return to the Barbican, two great opera companies and the range and quality of the West End commercial theatre?
I invite noble Lords to consider also the range of provision outside London. There are truly fine orchestras of the standing of the CBSO, the RLPO and the Hallé. There are regional theatres and art galleries. Glasgow's tremendous success as the European City of Culture in 1990 has set a standard that others will have difficulty in matching. Like Glasgow, Birmingham has now emerged as a great city of the arts with its new concert hall for the CBSO and new homes for Birmingham Royal Ballet and the D'Oyly Carte Company.
But all is not good news. There are difficulties, some serious and some pressing, as your Lordships have identified. I would suggest that many derive from short-term economic circumstances and are not faced by the arts alone. But the real problem goes deeper. There are three main reasons.
First, the tremendous growth of interest in the arts, which is a thoroughly good thing and welcomed without reservation, has meant that there is constant pressure for the expansion of arts facilities. The second reason is linked to that. Every additional pound invested in the arts in developing new facilities further fuels the demand, not only among the public but, understandably, as a result of their expanding expectations, of the artists themselves. The third reason is that even though successive governments have increased funding for the arts—I shall say more about the present Government's record in a moment —those increases have had to be apportioned among a growing list of clients and have not been evenly distributed.
Successive Ministers for the Arts and the Arts Council have rightly established priorities and have made difficult choices, recognising that the arts are dynamic and that the old must sometimes give way to the new. That process of change is fundamental to the health of the arts. I therefore suggest that the financial difficulties of some of the arts organisations, to which noble Lords have referred, need to be viewed in a wider context. They are not born of failure or decline, nor indeed of government neglect, but result from success, the internal dynamics of the arts and the difficulty of satisfying the appetite of the arts world and the general public.
The Government have an excellent record on funding of the performing arts. I shall restrict myself to several basic statistics to demonstrate that. The Government's grant to the Arts Council of Great Britain in the next financial year will be £194 million. That is an 11 per cent. increase on the current year's
618
grant of £174 million, itself an unprecedented increase of 12·5 per cent. on the previous year. Lest noble Lords be tempted to think that these two very good years—with increases well ahead of inflation—mask a less impressive earlier record, I should point out that since 1979 the value of the Arts Council's grant will have risen next year by 38 per cent. in real terms. Over a still longer timescale—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will be interested to hear this—the grant has risen over 200 per cent. in real terms since the end of the 1960s, which is often regarded as the golden age of the arts.
The truth is that public subsidy is a significant element of the total arts economy. But it is not and should not be the only element. Self-generated income has risen by over 40 per cent. from £91 million in 1988–89 to an estimated £125 million next year. Local authorities also spend a good deal on the arts, though I am bound to say that some are more generous and far-sighted than others. Collectively they contribute over £200 million a year. That is right, and enormously welcome. The public purse alone cannot reasonably be expected to provide all the resources which the arts world seeks, given the range of all the competing demands, some plainly of greater priority, for public expenditure. Nor in a democratic society such as ours should the state ever seek to assume that all-powerful responsibility. It needs little imagination to foresee the deadening consequences of such an arrangement.
It really cannot be in the interest of the arts to become over-reliant on a single source of funding, whatever that source may be. The best way that an arts body can safeguard its future and independence is to draw its funding from a variety of sources: not only central government, but also local government, the public, business and private patrons. It is also vitally important that they organise themselves in a business-like way and market their productions to maximise benefit at the box office. The increasing plurality of sources of funding is emerging as one of the great strengths of the British system as it is evolving. But there is some way further to go. Our past successes have been based on it: our future successes may depend on it.
So the performing arts face problems, as we must all acknowledge. But they are not problems of under-funding except in the limited sense that there is never at any one time sufficient money to satisfy every aspiration.
Although more remains to be done in supplementing public subsidy with other sources of income and improving business skills, many arts organisations have made impressive steps towards increasing their financial independence through better planning, better marketing and increased sponsorship. In this they have been greatly encouraged by government policies to that end. I shall touch briefly on some of them.
One of the most important developments was the incentive funding scheme set up by the Arts Council in 1988–89 to help arts organisations maximise self-generated income and to strengthen their artistic and financial planning.

619
Arts organisations had to demonstrate how they would double the value of an award over three years and translate that into artistic goals. Over the three years of the scheme 146 awards will have been made totalling £13.3 million. In the first year alone actual income growth of £16.2 million was achieved for investment of £4.3 million. The scheme has been a tremendous success. I know the fact that it is no longer open to new applications has caused some disappointment around the country, in particular for organisations hoping to benefit from it. However, the Government and the Arts Council took the view last autumn that some retargeting of incentive funding for the arts was timely. As a result a new enhancement fund is being put in place. Its purpose is to strengthen selected leading arts organisations—large and small, in and outside London—to enhance artistic standards and to improve financial and business planning.
Matching contributions will be sought wherever possible. The sum of £7·5 million for each of the next three years has been put aside for separate schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. Once the fund comes into operation in April I think we shall begin to see the vital contribution it will make to strengthening the artistic and financial position of many of our best companies.
Business too has been encouraged to play its part. The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme was launched in 1984. This has brought over £38 million into the arts, including a government contribution of £12·5 million, and over 1,700 first-time sponsors. Seventy per cent. of the awards in 1989–90 went outside London, which is a tribute to the range of arts events taking place away from the capital and to the interest they attract from local business.
The Government have also encouraged much more professional and effective marketing of the arts. A one-year experimental scheme in 1986 provided important lessons. These have now been disseminated widely to arts organisations through a report called Encouraging the Others. Other important developments flowing from the scheme are the development of distance-learning packages, a training programme for senior managers and assistance in developing marketing consortia. To date the Government have also contributed £90,000 to Business in the Arts, which offers bursaries for training arts managers and places businessmen with arts organisations to advise on their management. That advice alone already has an estimated monetary value of a quarter of a million pounds, with more on the way.
Another very welcome, and potentially significant, development was the introduction towards the end of last year of the gift aid scheme. The aim is to allow potential donors to make straightforward one-off gifts of money, which are then topped up by 33 per cent. by the Inland Revenue. Some donors are also able to claim tax relief on their donation. Although it has been in operation only for three months, a wide range of arts organisations has already received gifts. I
620
commend the scheme to your Lordships individually as well as collectively, and shall be delighted to arrange for further details to be provided on request.
In addition to maintaining and increasing the value of public subsidy, the Government have therefore done much to help expand the total arts economy through other sources of income and to help the arts world to help itself. It will continue to do so. At any time, but especially against the background of an almost insatiable demand for the arts, one of the fundamental tasks of all who fund the arts and all who receive grants is to get the most out of available funding. This involves everyone in setting clear priorities, sometimes involving hard judgments, and pursuing them with all due economy. This lies at the heart of the structural reforms of arts funding to which several noble Lords have today referred. I shall not burden the House with the detailed reasons for the reforms. Suffice it to say that the cultural landscape has changed enormously over the 45 years since the Arts Council was set up. The increasing involvement of local authorities in arts funding and the growth and coming to maturity of the regional arts associations were two of the main manifestations. The time was therefore ripe for a review of what the funding system does and how it does it, and how to bring together all the elements of a decentralised and plural funding system in pursuit of common aims.
Much has been said, in your Lordships' House today and elsewhere, to suggest that the reforms herald the end of the Arts Council. I can assure noble Lords—among them the noble Lords, Lord Goodman, Lord Bonham-Carter, and Lord Hutchinson—that nothing could be further from the truth. The reforms are designed to underline and clarify the respective functions of the Arts Council and the regional boards and, at root, are about the most effective allocation of those functions. The Arts Council will be principally responsible for determining the first ever comprehensive national arts strategy, consulting widely with all involved in the arts. It will monitor the implementation of the strategy and will directly administer grants to our national flagship companies and a portfolio of other clients yet finally to be decided. The new regional arts boards will increasingly administer artistic activity based in the regions.
In December my right honourable friend set out the way in which he wished to see the changes implemented. His conclusions were informed by the need to ensure that the regional boards were demonstrably capable of discharging their enlarged responsibilities effectively and economically. There was also understandable concern in some arts organisations at the prospect of their funding being transferred to bodies not yet in place. It has therefore been decided that the boards will need to have adequate time to become established and that it would be sensible for the delegation of clients to take place step by step. That staged approach will also allow later decisions on the scale and timing of further delegation

621
to be informed by the work that is proceeding in parallel on the new national arts strategy to which the Government attach great importance.
What the reforms will deliver, however, is what Jenny Lee once termed the best for the most. They will do so at the least possible cost. They will also maintain artistic standards. Administrative cost and artistic standards are matters to which the Government have attached, and will continue to attach, the greatest weight in implementing the reforms. However, the reforms are about more than effective policy-making and administration. I have said that the resources available to the arts do not come exclusively from central government. Local authorities are substantial contributors, and the present regional agencies, which are independent of central and local government, have done much to foster partnerships with local authorities and to bring money into the arts at district and county levels.
It is the aim of the structural reforms that regional arts boards should continue to develop these already excellent relationships. The scope for doing so has been highlighted by a recent Audit Commission report, which looked at local authority provision and identified the need for local authorities to set clearer objectives for their spending and to co-ordinate it more effectively. The new regional arts boards will comprise a wide range of regional interests, including local authorities, and will be uniquely well placed to offer advice and assistance to local authorities. An essential element of the reforms is thus the further development of co-operation at regional level between central and local government and the new regional boards in pursuit of the objectives of a national arts strategy which all will have helped fashion. I commend the reforms.
In the time available—I have about three minutes left in which to speak—I shall not be able to answer many of the questions raised by noble Lords. Perhaps I may refer to one of the most important points raised by many noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about capital funds and sinking funds of national companies. My right honourable friend is aware that the state of repair and preservation of those buildings is becoming a matter of increasing concern to their occupants, to the Arts Council and to the Theatres Trust. As noble Lords know, that was established,
"to promote the better protection of theatres for the benefit of the nation".
Individual companies are responsible for the maintenance of their buildings as part of their general overhead expenses and the costs have to be met in the usual way from funds at their disposal, including Arts Council grants.
We know that many companies which tend to operate within tight budgetary constraints have difficulties in allowing for this expenditure.
Against that background the Theatres Trust has proposed an audit of the state of the national stock of theatres. That proposal is very much in tune with the more ambitious millenium initiative being proposed
622
by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. The trust is in touch with the council and is suggesting that they might jointly take the matter forward.
My right honourable friend will carefully consider the outcome of those discussions. However, I must tell your Lordships that the Minister has only recently announced the commissioning by his department of a major study of the building renovation needs of the national museums and galleries. At present he has no plans to initiate any further work centrally on arts buildings.
I am afraid that due to the time I have not answered all the points raised in the debate. I assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts will study the debate closely and read all the contributions that have been made.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it remains only for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. Indeed, I congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the wonderful way in which they contained their passions within the space of seven minutes. We shall wish to digest what the noble Viscount said and hope that the Minister for the Arts will cogitate our remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, for Papers, withdrawn.

School Libraries: Resources
8.10 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what provision is being made for school libraries and the school library service in the light of the need for proper resources for the national curriculum.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, most people, whether or not involved in education, would agree that a properly stocked library is central to the success of a school. By "properly stocked" I mean not only the number of books and other resources but their quality and relevance to the stage of development of the pupils. Therefore, it is understandable that there is widespread anxiety about the deterioration in the standard of school libraries. It is a worry exacerbated by the requirements of the national curriculum and the introduction of the local management of schools.
The two most recent HMI reports on secondary school libraries show the position in 1984–85 and in 1988–89. Those reports, the contents of which the Minister will be well aware, show a disturbing position. It is so disturbing that the Labour Party undertook a survey of 14 local education authorities, 12 of which were the subject of investigation in the HMI reports. In addition, it sought up to date information from half a dozen professional organisations concerned with school libraries.
In the light of the HMI reports alone, one would have thought that the Government would have followed them up. Perhaps they are reluctant to do so for the obvious reason that it would draw attention to what can only be described as an alarming situation.

623
If the Government have responded to the HMI reports it should be published for everyone to see. Only in that way can constructive criticism be made. The least that can be done is for the Minister to deal with the reports tonight in his reply to the debate.
It is proper that there should be frequent reference to the HMI reports because the inspectors are the nearest agency to the Government. But concern and criticism comes from many organisations, not least from parents' associations. Most noble Lords can produce anecdotal evidence. As a former education officer for my local area, I keep in touch with schools, governors, teachers, parents and the local education authority. The problems in school libraries are frequently raised. I am sure that the DES receives its share of complaints and, therefore, I hope that we shall not hear any complacency when the Minister replies. However, more than anecdotal evidence is required. From discussions that I have had with colleagues in this House and in another place there is no doubt that their experience is similar to mine.
I turn therefore to the Library Association and the School Library Association. Their substantial evidence supports all the anxiety being expressed by other bodies. I am sure that the Minister is aware of their comments—I have them here in a hefty file—and I hope that he will refer to them later. There are two basic requirements for a good school library; money and expertise. No doubt the Minister will tell the House that the local management of schools will deal adequately with the financial aspect. In reply to that I say, as I have said many times in this House, that it depends on how much money is available to the school.
Already we are hearing disturbing stories from all over the country that some schools cannot meet all their requirements with the finance available to them. School libraries and other important aspects of a school's work will inevitably suffer; indeed, they are already suffering. The local management of schools brings pressure to meet revenue commitments, not least because of teaching staff costs which represent a substantial proportion of school budgets. Therefore, it is inevitable that areas of expenditure such as book purchasing, which can easily be cut or delayed, will be affected. I am sure that there will be a significant increase in the number of jumble sales to raise funds for school libraries.
Financial difficulty is also being caused by the problems facing the services that are provided for schools by the local education authority school libraries and information services. No fewer than 20 library authorities are being charge-capped in the current financial year. Even where charge-capping is not taking place cuts are having to be made. In the current financial year, 1990–91, 26 authorities are making cuts in their library services. Thirty-three authorities believe that cuts will need to be made in 1991–92. If the Minister can tell your Lordships tonight that those reductions will not affect the services to schools I shall be glad to have that on the record.
I cannot let the reference to the local education authority library service to schools pass without saying how important and valuable it is. It is manifestly impossible for all or even most school libraries to carry the full range of books and resources. In such circumstances the local authority contribution can be crucial. The importance of the LEA school library services is so great that I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State is proposing that they should be delegated to schools.
A few moments ago I said that it was impossible for many schools to carry the full range of books and resources. That is so blindingly obvious that I ask the Minister to deny that the Secretary of State has issued a draft circular proposing such delegation. If he has, I hope that he will withdraw it. The opposition that he will receive from the schools should leave him in no doubt that not only is it an unwise suggestion but that it is a ludicrous proposal.
Those services are provided by professional librarians and that speaks for itself. That brings me to ask the Minister another question—I am sure that he has noticed that I have many questions to ask him tonight. Does he have information on whether any schools have found or will find it necessary to dispense will full-time librarians? I am aware that full-time qualified librarians are usually employed only in larger schools, but professional librarians in such schools make a vital contribution to the service. Their absence simply lessens the value of the library to a considerable extent. We should consider an increase, not a reduction, in full-time librarians for schools. In practical terms, a professional librarian could serve more than one school.
All my remarks tonight are made against a background which did not exist two or three years ago. There is now the national curriculum and initiatives such as TVEI, CPVE and, of course, GCSE. All those encourage—and this is extremely important —student-centred, resource-based learning as opposed to teacher-oriented, classroom-based teaching. That emphasis requires the provision of adequate learning resources ranging from the traditional printed material to audio-visual and electronic media.
If the Government believe—and presumably they do—that that is the way to proceed, then more and not fewer resources are necessary for our children. It is reasonable to assume that when the Government introduced such a massive change as the national curriculum they were aware of the additional cost involved and that schools and LEAs would need to be provided with the additional resources required. So far it appears that they believe that a shuffling of money under the guise of LMS will meet the needs brought about by the innovation.
In May 1989 Her Majesty's inspectors issued a survey called Better Libraries: Good Practice in Schools. Among other references to the national curriculum it stated:
"The objectives of the national curriculum will be best supported in those schools which have a broad, balanced and up-to-date provision of library books and resource materials".

625
With due respect to HMIs, that is a statement of the obvious. However, that is what was said and therefore I put it on record. I assume that that authority means something to the Government.
I have refrained from quoting numerous statistics although I have many of them. Perhaps I may look at one very important statistic—the cost of and allowances for books. The Library Association and Book Trust recommend a minimum of £8.53 per pupil per year. In 1985.FIMIs recommended that secondary school; should have a library containing 10 books per pupil and that 10 per cent. of the stock should be replaced each year. On the basis of my experience, I believe that most LEAs find those targets very difficult to achieve.
However, what is actually being spent is frightening. The 1989 HMI report stated that the average expenditure from six LEAs, chosen because of varying conditions, was £2.04 per head. A recent Labour Party investigation found these figures: for Knowsley, an average of 65p per pupil per year; for Warwickshire, just under £1; for Shropshire, £1.45; and for Dorset, £2.75. Those figures speak for themselves.
However, there is now an additional complicating factor caused by the Government's incompetence in dealing with the economy. Of course, I refer to inflation. In his 1988–89 annual report the Senior Chief Inspector of Schools said:
"There are some indications that the shortcomings in the availability of books are now being influenced by the inflation in book prices outstripping rises in capitation allowances".
As one who buys a fair number of books, I can testify to the large price increases which have taken place over the past two years.
If the Government accept the view of the inspectors —and I do not see how that can be refuted—I ask the Minister specifically whether this matter is being monitored in view of the fact that the Government are supporting expenditure on books for the national curriculum through the education support grant programme. Can the Minster say what assessment has been made of the additional costs for books in order to introduce the system? Those matters are of fundamental importance to the proper education of our children.
I concede readily that when all local education authorities and schools are looked at there is considerable variation as regards this type of expenditure. However, the purpose in raising this subject today is to draw attention to the highly unsatisfactory position in many schools and areas. I urge the Government to do something about that as a matter of urgency. The fact that the 1989 HMI report said that it found "encouraging signs of improvement" on the position contained in its 1985 report should give no cause for complacency, though we can all be pleased about the improvements which are mentioned. There is a great deal to be done, particularly because of what has been said about the working of LMS, the national curriculum and the other matters to which I have already referred.
I have not mentioned one aspect which some noble Lords may not regard as having the same importance as others. I believe that the room designated as a library should be attractive; a room
626
to which pupils are eager to go. That helps to stimulate a love of learning. One of the joys of life for some of us—and I assume many in your Lordships' House—is browsing in libraries and bookshops. That ensures that learning is a never-ending process. I know that improving a library in a school means more capital costs but that should not deter us from aiming high.
I shall not pretend that I know much about the position in Scotland and Wales but since I tabled my Question, colleagues from those countries have expressed their disquiet to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, told me that had she not had another engagement this evening she would have taken part in the debate. She is honorary president of the Scottish Library Association and would have undoubtedly made a valuable contribution to our discussions.
From the information I have it is clear that the same problems exist in Scotland. The recent curricular developments have created significant demand for material and for professional staff to organise and exploit that material. In 1985 both the Library and Information Services Council for Scotland and the Scottish Library Association produced reports on the school library service which clearly stated the need for planned developments so that curricula changes could be adequately resourced. It is worrying that the Scottish education department has not taken into account any of its recommendations.
It is not surprising to learn, regrettably, that in Scotland there is the same anxiety about the school library service. The Secretary of State for Scotland should consider that matter. If that matter is being looked at, I should like more details. Perhaps the Minister can give that due consideration.
I turn briefly to Wales because it is obvious that the same problems exist there. They are contained in the recently published report prepared by the Library and Information Services Council for Wales which is the advisory body for the Secretary of State. Among the disturbing features and statistics is the fact that the annual average spending on books is £1 per pupil per year. Perhaps I had better leave such matters to be raised on another occasion by noble Lords from the Principality.
I have dealt with the situation in Scotland and Wales because it is of considerable significance that the same problems exist in all three countries. One point which arises from the references to Scotland and Wales is that there does not appear to be much co-ordination between the three Secretaries of State. In view of the momentous changes taking place in education there is surely a great need for co-operation to ensure that the same standards apply —and not only in the provision of good school libraries.
I conclude by again referring to the HMI report which states:
"Although advances have been made there are still many pupils who are paying the price of past neglect. It is still true to say, as in the 1985 HMI report, that the investment of money, staff and time in some libraries is so low that without

627
changes of policy, perception and levels of provision it will be difficult for these pupils to receive their full library and information skills entitlement".
That shows concern enough, but those words were written before the full implications of LMS and the national curriculum were known. Indeed, they are hardly yet fully realised some two years after the report was written. There is a great need for an up-to-date survey of the situation. Present day statistics and attitudes urgently need up-dating.
Schools, their staffs, the librarians and parents are eager to improve what is for many pupils nothing less than a critical situation. The onus for that improvement lies fairly and squarely on the Government.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, for raising this subject. It is surely one that strikes at the very heart of the education system. When we are dealing with written knowledge we need books to study that knowledge. It is worth noting that it is not just books that are now stored in libraries. Such things as audio visual materials generally fall under the heading of library activities and play an increasing part in our day-to-day lives. They should be fully utilised in the many forms of educational activity that exist today.
The noble Lord did a great deal of the spadework in the debate by indicating the statistics behind the fact that insufficient money is being spent in the libraries of our schools and colleges. A great problem arises from the fact that we are vastly expanding the number of books—textbooks and general information books—required in schools due to the national curriculum. The national curriculum was aimed at helping more students to study more subjects to examination level, and one hopes that it is achieving that goal. That means that every pupil will need more textbooks and back-up books containing general information.
It is worth remembering that those are two very different demands placed on the library sections in schools. One is to provide the hard factual knowledge for the national curriculum and GCSE examination. Pupils will no longer be spoon-fed that information. Thankfully the days when a teacher overcame the problem of having insufficient books by dictating to the class are disappearing. That was one of the most appalling educational practices.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, reminded me that I should refer to the subject of dyslexia. For anyone with reading or writing difficulties dictation was probably the worst of all teaching methods, for one simple reason. One wrote badly—and not everything—into a textbook or onto a piece of paper and could not read it back afterwards. It was a total waste of time. I would also point out that when a teacher was attempting to deliver information he often delivered it in a steady pattern. In my case that generally meant that I fell asleep after about 25
628
minutes. That happened also when I was at university and I blame my low attendance at lectures on that.
To take further the point that books should encourage interest in the acquisition of knowledge, that means that we must have up-to-date textbooks dealing with subjects in an up-to-date manner. They must be written in a manner to which students can relate. If one examines textbooks, one sees that over the past few years the style has changed very rapidly. The way in which textbooks are written has changed dramatically; they are no longer as dry or as stale as they were. That fact, and the fact that syllabuses have been changed mean that schools are under pressure to change textbooks. That is another reason for paying attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said—that we are spending insufficient amounts on books. We are on a treadmill. Standards are improving and we shall need more books, perhaps not in greater numbers but they will need to be replaced faster.
The greater emphasis on technology and science in the national curriculum means that we need more textbooks on subjects that are rapidly advancing. For instance, basic introductory facts now were often examination subjects a few years ago. I remember, more years ago than I care to admit, finding that new areas in biology had opened up during the previous five years because an electronic microscope had been brought in. The study of cells meant that we no longer had simply a nucleus and some mush around the outside but one had a number of different components within that jelly because one could actually see them. There are many more examples in the electronic and technology fields. They are fast expanding and schools are under increasing pressure to keep people up to date with these subjects.
Those people with special educational needs—to refer back to one of my earlier points—need a great variety of books that are specifically written for them. They must hold the person's interest and the person must be able to understand them. Fortunately there has been a move towards people providing what are called easy reader books. They are simplified versions of books such as the literary classics of the 19th century which can be read by a 12 year-old without his necessarily being able to ascertain the plot. Bringing those books up to date places another strain on the library system. With those types of books being introduced and with more people appreciating that that type of stimulus is needed for education, the pressure also increases. As we understand more about certain subjects and learning difficulties, libraries are placed under increasing strain.
I do not wish to say much more at this point, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said everything so well. However, if we are to encourage people to educate themselves and stop teachers spoon-feeding knowledge into pupils, we must make that knowledge available in a form which the pupils can acquire by themselves once they have been shown where to find it. That means that libraries have an important role to play; it is an increasing and expanding role. Libraries

629
suggest that if no professional librarian is available, any teacher who finds himself having to look after a library should be trained in how to do so.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, for all who enjoy reading and want our children to enjoy reading and to learn how to use books and other learning materials, this is an important debate. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Dormand asked this Question in regard to school libraries and the school library service.
I do not know whether it is necessary for me to declare an interest; it is certainly not a financial one. I am chairman of the National Book Committee, which has among its members representatives of all groups interested in books. They include authors, agents and publishers. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, is to speak this evening; he is a publisher representative on that committee. The members also include book sellers, both antiquarian and ordinary, librarians and the Book Trust, which is the successor of the National Book League, which represents the general reader.
I am also a vice-president of the Library Association. What the National Book Committee does is promote the book. For instance, it put up a very good fight against VAT on books, and that was a battle which was won. The committee regularly produces surveys of school book, university and polytechnic and public library spending. It publicises these, sending them to local authorities, both officials and chairmen of committees, and to very many MPs and Peers who are involved in the world of education and the arts.
The figures produced in these surveys over the past 10 years have not been encouraging. One has to make the caveat that some local authorities are very much better than others. Inevitably, the figures that I have are a little out-of-date because our surveys come out a year or two late. I shall quote very few because statistics are boring. My noble friend has quoted some. It is important to get the picture. Book spending per pupil for all books, text and library, in 1987–88 for primary schools was £9.06 and in 1988–89 it was £8.93. That is a reduction in real terms of 7 per cent. or so. Of that sum the estimated expenditure on library books was £1.56 for primary schools and £2.49 for secondary schools, whereas the national standard recommended as not good but reasonable was £4.64 for primary schools and £7.56 for secondary schools.
Therefore, one sees how far below the recommended standard expenditure already is. Expenditure on the school library service for all costs and not just books also went down by about 7 per cent. in a year. It was just over £3. That amount of money hardly buys a paperback. It is no wonder that the report of the HMI on libraries for 1988–89 found that 70 per cent. of the stock was obsolete. A survey carried out recently by Mark Fisher and Derek Fatchett for the Labour Party into school libraries revealed numbers of out-of-date and quite astonishing books. From that survey they culled these gems:
"Pygmies are fierce little creatures, but all are loyal subjects of King George V".
630
That was taken from a history book of 1930. Another example is:
"If man lands on the moon, he will need radio communication".
That was from Science Today of 1954. Spending on books for school libraries fell from almost one-third of schoolbook expenditure to one-sixth over the past 10 years. That explains how the stock has become increasingly out-of-date. Therefore, the injection of more books from the school library service becomes more rather than less important.
The weeding out of old stock is very good practice, but it can reveal the paucity of provision. One school was left with just four shelves of books. But now we have LMS. In this debate we are facing today exactly what we faced last Wednesday when we debated the teaching of instrumental music and the future of theatre in education. What used to be provided and overseen by the local authority will be provided or not at the whim of the governing body. The overall view which could ensure some fairness for all pupils in an area will be gone. The school library service may well be at risk when the governing body decides what it will or will not buy in.
Much will depend on local authority management and how it organises its services. Some have the library and education services separate; others amalgamate them under one committee. Where there is integration the service can be very good, as in Hertfordshire; but I hear that Oxfordshire is cutting its expenditure on the school library service by 25 per cent. in 1991–92 and by a further 25 per cent. in 1992–93. There is a crisis situation in many areas, whether because of the poll tax, charge capping or whatever.
The DES Circular 7/88 on LMS advised that the Secretary of State will allow the school library service to be a discretionary item. That means that it will not have to delegate expenditure on the school library service provided that the costs can be held, along with other discretionary items, to within 10 per cent. of the general schools' budget. At the present time most LEAs are likely to have retained central management. I should like to know whether, when he comes to reply, the Minister has any information on this matter. But by April 1993 LEAs will be able to hold back only 7 per cent. At this point it is all too probable that it will be left to the school to decide whether or not to buy in the school library service.
Non-statutory advice from the DES states that the DES would not expect a school to have to commit itself for a period of more than three years to continue what remains of the school library service. Are Ministers really happy that the school library service is likely to be broken up by LMS? The HMI survey to which my noble friend referred; namely, Better Libraries; Good Practice in Schools states:
"A good Schools Library Service offers invaluable advice and support for those within schools concerned with libraries. The wide range of professional help which many School Library Services provide includes lending up-to-date reading matter of quality, reviewing stock items in terms of suitability … ".
I hope that the Minister will respond to my question as to what the DES intends to do.

631
The amount of the school library service budget when delegated to individual schools will in any case be small in terms of book purchasing power when compared to the benefits reaped from retaining a centralised service. One LEA, which is not a big one, quotes its situation where each school has potential access by exchange to over 60,000 volumes and 7,000 audio-visual items. That is the situation at the moment. What will happen in two or three years' time?
As my noble friend said, all that is particularly important with the introduction of the national curriculum and of the GCSE, too. They will make very much greater demands on library resources of all kinds. Children have to learn to learn. The Cox Report, making recommendations on the English curriculum, says:
"Schools must provide a dynamic reading environment which requires a wide-ranging collection of material available at all times".
The report also stresses the need for information-handling skills to be learned at primary age. For that a trained and competent librarian is necessary. School library services for the schools they serve are not an extra provision—the icing on the cake for an already ample book stock. For many schools, and small primary schools in particular, they provide the essential books for topic-based work. The basis of a book stock presents reading as an attractive adventure for children. School library services provide not only the most up-to-date stock but also the expertise of a professional librarian staff who advise and support teachers both in choosing stock wisely and in running libraries. In most cases teachers have no professional training for that task. The schools which have chartered librarians on their staff are all too few. I am told that Scotland does very much better in that respect than England and Wales.
I return to the primary schools. I had a letter from Mrs. Shirley Singleton, a parent of two children at Thorneyholme Roman Catholic School, Dunsop Bridge, Clitheroe. She is also a governor of another small school. She had somehow heard of this debate. She wrote to express her concern about the possible changes to the school library services. She fears the detrimental effect on the school which is 12 miles from the nearest public library. That means that it is not at all easy for children to visit it. I have no doubt that there are many other anxious parents who care about their children's reading and the opportunities that may be lost.
We have the Secretary of State moaning about reading standards. Does he really think that if there are not enough books and books of the right kind, whether in the classroom, in the school library or provided by the school library service, children will be encouraged to read and to get to understand that it is a satisfactory and satisfying way of spending one's time?
I hope this debate will have alerted the department to the seriousness of the situation now and how it could deteriorate further, if, as we fear, LMS will
632
mean a real reduction of the school library service and of the experienced librarians who run it—particularly in the light of the increased needs arising from the introduction of the national curriculum. I am glad that the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in another place is about to undertake a quick study of reading standards in schools and is likely to consider the role of the public and school libraries in reading standards.
Finally I have some questions for the Minister. First, is the department paying attention to the very great anxieties in the schools among parents and LEAs? Secondly, has the department plans for monitoring the effect of devolving funds to the schools and governing bodies, the effect on the school libraries and on the school library service?
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for the opportunity he has afforded the House to discuss the provision of books in school libraries throughout the country. I must of course declare an interest. My family has been in the publishing business for five generations, two more than our interest in politics. Over the past 145 years the libraries of Britain, and especially the school libraries in the world, have been among our most valued and, I am happy to say, consistent customers. Furthermore, I have the honour to be an honorary vice-president of the Library Association in addition to belonging to the august bodies that the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned. As a vice-president of the Library Association, I must endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, about resources as set out in the recently produced Library Association report.
School librarians and library committees would love to buy more books. Two things are stopping them; provision for library purchases and, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the price of books. There are many among your Lordships who would say that the price of books is too high, and broadly I would say that I agree with that. The publishing industry in this country suffers from overproduction. There are just too many titles being published each year, and increasingly, in both the retail and library markets, books are facing competition from items which did not even exist 30 years ago. In the retail book trade the book pound is the leisure pound. We compete with videos, holidays, evenings out, theatres, cinema and beer. In the institutional market we compete with databases, journals, magazines, compact discs, and electronic systems of all kinds, not least the very systems by which librarians and libraries run their affairs.
In real terms the price of books has not gone up more than the competition. Indeed, in most cases it has gone up less. In 1951 the hardback price of a serious biography, or a literary novel, was 15 shillings and sixpence. For the same sum one could buy two tickets in the stalls of a West End theatre or dinner for

633
two at a respectable restaurant. The equivalent book is now £14.99, whereas two stalls tickets will cost more than £30 and a comparable dinner about £40.
No, the price of books in this country is still too high compared to our European partners or even the United States; and it is too high for one reason above all others. This is the discounts and terms demanded and received by the retail trade in this country and especially the major chains, and in particular W.H. Smith. As a firm we operate in the major markets of the world and have academic, educational, hardback trade and mass-market paperback operations in this country, the United States and another 24 countries around the world.
The range of margins from publishers to the book trade in America is from 41 per cent. discount for the smallest bookseller to 45 per cent. discount for the large multiples such as Baker and Taylor. In Britain the small country bookshop can get as little as 39 per cent. discount, but W.H. Smith and some of the other large multiples ask and get a 51 per cent. discount. In the United States terms of settlement vary, but never for more than 60 days. In Britain W.H. Smith has unilaterally imposed terms of 90 days on its suppliers.
One asks how this can be. It is very simple. W.H. Smith controls through itself and its associate companies—they include Waterstone's, Sherratt and Hughes and a number of others—between 35 and 37 per cent. of most trade publishers' UK business. In the case of my own firm, we are 0.7 per cent. of theirs. The result is that the price of books in Britain, including children's books, reference books, classics, and novels, even allowing for larger American print runs, is between 15 and 20 per cent. higher than in the United States. If prices were comparable the erosion of book library provision would have been fully matched.
I shall not detain the House at this late hour with detailed figures of the German and French markets, but experience has shown that the price of books in those markets is of the same order of relative cheapness. It is thus that the prices are higher, not only for the customers in the shops but also for the libraries which in general purchase through library suppliers or through educational buying institutions. We are not referring to text books, which are priced entirely differently.
This brings me to my final point. The library supplier packages the book for the library. He puts on it a plastic case to improve the book's longevity; he marks the book with the cataloguing system of the relevant authority; he affixes the holder for the card and marks the card with the appropriate coding or in some cases the sticker with the appropriate machine-readable code. This is a painstaking and fiddly business, but it is made infinitely more complex by the fact that almost none of the 40 or more library authorities uses the same system, or the same sized card, in the same place on the same bit of the book. There is a sort of scarcely controlled anarchy in the specifications that library authorities insist upon. No doubt there are good historical reasons why so many systems, grew up and no doubt the librarians each consider that their own authority's system is sans pared. Can noble Lords imagine just how much this
634
plethora of different ideas adds to the cost of preparing books both for county and school libraries? In many cases the school libraries in a given area have a different specification from the public libraries in the same area.
This debate does not touch on the provision of textbooks for schools—that is another and even broader question—but if the objectives of the national curriculum are to be met then school libraries must be furnished with a wider range of books. Of course I hope that my noble kinsman the Minister will undertake to present to the Secretary of State in another place the concerns which have been expressed in the debate. If the price of books were less, that would make such additional provision as I hope the Government will make go so much further: and the solution to that lies in the major part in the hands of the retail and wholesale trade of the British book business.
8.58 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I shall keep the House for only a few moments. I cannot add to the commercial information which my noble friend, with his great interest in the selling of books, has given. Listening to what goes on in the book trade made me think that competition is not at all a bad thing.
When I first went to the Ministry of Education in 1954 the state of school libraries was distressing. I invented the list showing the amount or money spent per pupil on books every year. The lowest amount was a shilling or two and the highest was about 20 times that figure. There was a huge spread. The National Book League and others have done a great deal to try to remedy the position. I want to look at this issue from the point of view of the pupil. The pupil wants to have the information necessary for the courses which he or she is taking. As my noble friend has just said, the methods by which one can get information today have greatly increased in number. Books are not the only method. In regard to school libraries, the Secretary of State must now take into consideration all the methods by which information can be given, and, resources being limited, they must be carefully distributed.
When I first came into the business of looking after the maintained schools, nothing struck me with greater force than the appalling number—perhaps 80 to 85 per cent.—of children passing through those schools who, on leaving, had no more education. That was wrong and it was wrong for many reasons. It is wrong nowadays because knowledge is being accumulated so quickly. I considered whether I could use the provision of books in schools to promote a continuing interest in knowledge for those boys and girls who had given up education. The answer was to persuade the local authority public libraries to have a children's department and to encourage the teachers to send the children to the public library. There they could become accustomed to using it and then they might go on using it after they had left school. Very few authorities took up that idea but a few did and it was very successful. If it was worth doing 36 years ago it is worth doing now.

635
It is now much more obvious that education goes on throughout life. The habit of consulting the means of acquiring knowledge ought to be ingrained in boys and girls and they ought to go on doing it. This cannot be done very easily in rural areas but it can be done in towns. It would be a great mistake if the ordinary public library service was not built up at the same time as we do more for the libraries in schools.
Anyone who is concerned with a major educational reform—I was Minister off and on for eight years so I had some chance —knows that one cannot see the fruit of one's labours. One cannot make a big reform in education and get the results in a period of less than 10 to 15 years. Here we are at the beginning of an enormous reform. It is quite likely that certain parts of the machinery required to put the national curriculum into effect are neglected compared with others. If the libraries were neglected compared with other areas I would be the strongest supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and those who, like him, think that more resources should be devoted to them. However, an extraordinarily expensive and long-term effort is required to bring a big change into the schools in this country.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that we can all agree on one point in this debate: books are the most vital ingredient in any child's or young person's capacity to learn. Without a really good supply of informative, interesting and well-written books, a young inquiring mind will be starved and the huge potential of every child to learn—every child has a huge potential to learn—will be wasted.
The habit of reading is best acquired early in life. Those who fail to make it a habit in childhood are unlikely to do so later. Good books which are appropriate to the level of maturity a child has reached should be easily accessible to all our children. This can happen only if their schools have good libraries. I regret to say that many children come from homes where there are few books and where the public library is considered to be an alien place.
I was delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, decided to speak in the debate. I was somewhat disappointed to see the paucity of speakers from the Government Benches on this important subject. It made me wonder whether they agreed that it was important. The noble Earl, the noble Viscount and other speakers have drawn attention to the importance of libraries and to the inadequate nature of many of our school libraries at present. They have signalled concern that the problem could get worse. It certainly could get worse as a result of the introduction of local financial management in our schools. I hope that when the noble Lord replies for the Government he will be able to give some indication of the safeguards that the Government will introduce to ensure that the school library service is preserved and that schools budget adequately for their own libraries.
636
The disparities between schools are already far too great. It would be most unsatisfactory if as a result of local financial management they became worse. I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, with all his experience of the education system, had to say about the existence of these disparities over a very long period of time. We might have hoped that they would have been lessened and that the gap between the best schools and the worst would now be less than it was in the 1950s. That clearly is not so. What I am particularly worried about is that the disparities will become worse still.
We shall be very disappointed if all we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, is a defensive account of why things are really not all that bad. We know that they are just not good enough. The new national curriculum requires new resources in the form of new library provision, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said. The subject working parties of the national curriculum have without exception stressed this point. It is regrettable that at present it is hard to see from where these resources will come.
New approaches to teaching at the secondary stage nearly all emphasise what in education jargon is described as resource-based learning with a student centred approach. Gone are the days when a teacher stood at the front of the class with a piece of chalk, a blackboard and possibly a single textbook. It is now recognised that project-based teaching, where pupils are required to go off on their own and research subjects themselves, produces much better results. It encourages initiative, it rewards imagination and creativity, as well as the assiduous searching out of information, and promotes care in presenting the findings of the research. The TVEI, GCSE and the CPV, as well as the national curriculum, encourage these approaches to teaching and learning. But if they are to be effective, the source material and good advice on how to use it must be made available. Above all, young people must acquire information gathering and information handling skills, and the skills will be of great benefit to them after they have left school, whatever they go on to do. Of course teachers can play their part in developing these skills, but the specialist expertise of professional librarians is also needed, backed up with high quality school libraries.
That makes the case for a well stocked and well equipped library in suitable accommodation, with a professional librarian, to be in every secondary school. Most primary schools will not be able to employ a professional librarian, but they too should have a good library which encourages children to go into it, to select books for themselves and to read outside the set times for doing so.
In both primary and secondary schools their libraries need to be supplemented by the school library service, organised centrally by the local education authority. That is especially important for small schools and rural schools where access to the public library is difficult. The very latest HMI report that came out last week emphasises the reliance of primary

637
schools on the school library service. It also notes that, while schools have quite sufficient reading schemes and textbooks, they are,
"less well provided with good quality fiction, poetry and reference books".
At the secondary stage HMI's verdict was pretty damning. Most school libraries,
"are judged to be poorly stocked through a combination of past neglect, low funding and book price inflation".
The inspectorate mentions that libraries are at least being used more than they were, but there is not much point in their being used a great deal more if they are totally inadequate. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on this most recent judgment of the Government's own advisers.
HMI's latest comments serve only to reinforce the findings of the recent Labour Party survey, to which my noble friends have already referred, as well as reinforcing an earlier HMI report on school libraries, which has also been referred to in this debate. Let me give one or two examples which the Labour Party has recently discovered in regard to staffing. In Lincolnshire, which has 59 secondary schools, there is only one school librarian. In Dorset, with 44 secondary schools, there is again only one school librarian. In Kent, with as many as 138 secondary schools, there are three part-time librarians. My noble friend Lord Dormand asked whether any schools have dispensed with professional librarians. I am sure there must be a number of examples where that has happened with figures like that before us.
Let me give a few examples with respect to funding. My noble friend Lord Dormand has already given some examples of spending per pupil per annum and I shall not repeat them. However, most of the authorities he has quoted were spending less than £1.50 per head per annum. How can that possibly be adequate to provide the kind of library provision that we need in the modern age? My noble friend Lady David reinforced those findings with further figures. Against those miserable sums, the Library Association recommends that we spend a minimum of between £8 and £9 a year.
The HMI survey of school libraries found that a quartet of all secondary schools were spending less than £1 per pupil per annum. It also showed that over one-fifth of secondary schools had fewer than eight books per pupil in their libraries. Much of the stock was out of date and had not been properly weeded. It claimed that in some schools 70 per cent. of the stock was obsolete. As my noble friend Lady David has indicated, the Labour Party survey also found that many schools in the authorities it had investigated had out-of-date stock. She gave your Lordships one or two illustrations. I can give one or two more. A 1962 publication, still in use in one of our schools, claims that Britain imports all its oil. A 1923 volume on England and Wales tells our pupils:
"you may now stand in our office in London and speak to someone in Liverpool or even in New York, part of this last service being carried out by a wireless link".
Well, I never!
638
My final example comes from a book published in 1958 which had in it a chapter on the "frizzy-haired cannibals" of New Guinea. These examples may give us some amusement, but we cannot be confident that we can deliver the national curriculum if children are surviving on books full of misleading and in some cases even offensive material like this.
Noble Lords have made clear that it is the view of HMI that 10 per cent. of books per pupil in secondary schools is the absolute minimum. All the evidence suggests that we are not achieving that minimum figure. Unless action is taken urgently there will be a crisis in school library provision brought about by past failures and by the latest developments in funding. Meanwhile, book prices are soaring.
I liked the comparison of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, with theatre seats and a dinner for two in a restaurant. The problem is that many parents cannot afford either of those things. I was interested to hear his comparisons with the United States and Europe. I should like to add that since 1981 school book prices have increased by 59 per cent. above the retail prices index. As one local authority librarian recently stated in slightly Churchillian tones, never have school library services been so necessary and yet never have they been in so much danger.
A movement towards local management of schools will have two effects. First, it will leave inadequate funds for LEAs to provide a good school library service because of the 10 per cent. limit to which my noble friend Lady David referred. Secondly, many schools will have difficulty in providing the staff and stocks for their own libraries because of the squeeze on their budgets.
According to the Labour Party survey, over 90 per cent. of schools depend upon the school library service. It appears that most LEAs have retained central management of the school library service rather than delegating it elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister could indicate more precisely what the present position is.
The concern that is now being expressed in a number of quarters by the Library Association and local authority associations relates to what will happen after 1st April 1993 when LEAs will be faced with a further reduction in the proportion of the general school budget that is available for expenditure on discretionary items like the school library service. That reduction will bring the figure down from 10 per cent. to 7 per cent. In those circumstances there is a danger that the LEAs will delegate expenditure on the school library service to schools and that some schools will then decide that they cannot buy in services. That, in turn, will lead to its collapse.
In the light of HMI's strong praise of the school library service and its comments on the invaluable professional support that it provides to schools, perhaps the Minister could say what, if anything, the Government intend to do to ensure that it does not collapse. I repeat the question posed by my noble friend: can the Minister say whether LEAs will be

639
advised to retain the service as a discretionary item or whether it might be earmarked by the DES to remain as such?
Turning to schools, the question is whether under LMS a good school library will be considered the essential high priority item of expenditure that it ought to be. Will it be considered as something that adds to the attractiveness of the school? It probably will be, but the question is whether schools will be able to afford to maintain good libraries. In the present resource climate of charge capping and limits on expenditure, I suspect that they will not.
According to the Educational Publishers Council, schools bought 2 million fewer books in 1989 than in previous years. Pity the poor head teacher trying to deliver the national curriculum and raise standards in reading and other areas with inadequate funding. At present the Government are providing some support for expenditure on books through the ESG programme. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether the additional costs of books that are needed to support the national curriculum have been properly assessed and whether ESGs will be increased to cover the full costs associated with the introduction of the national curriculum.
According to the English national curriculum, attainment target 2, reading, requires that,
"Pupils should encounter an environment in which they are surrounded by books and other reading material presented in an attractive and inviting way".
What arrangements are the Government making to ensure that HMI monitors progress of that requirement? As my noble friends have suggested, surely HMI should monitor the operation of school libraries on a regular basis, including monitoring the quality and range of their book stock.
The national curriculum provides us with a golden opportunity to turn our school libraries into a wonderful resource, supporting its programmes. It would be a substantial achievement if all of today's pupils were able in later years to look back on their school library as a treasure house which gave them a love of books for the rest of their lives. Sadly, it appears that we are very far from achieving high quality school libraries. Instead, we are letting children and young people down by failing to provide them with one of the most important tools of learning and understanding.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there can be no doubt that children need books. They need text books, reference books and books for general reading. Schools have the task of ensuring that their pupils have the books they need to support the delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum as the Education Reform Act requires.
Exactly how schools go about making that provision is a matter for local decision, not for central government. At the moment many schools make extensive use of the schools library service. They may well choose to continue to do so, or they may choose
640
alternative approaches. That is up to them. The Government do not require LEAs and schools to adopt any one method of providing books for pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, asks what provision is being made in the light of the need for proper resources for the national curriculum. The national curriculum does not require wholesale replacement of books. It is based on the best of existing practice. But of course it is requiring many schools to offer a broader curriculum to all age groups than they have done before. It is providing an incentive for all schools to review their book stocks to see how well they match up to the new curriculum —a curriculum that not only offers breadth and balance but also places increasing emphasis on pupils being more active learners.
As a result of reviewing their book stocks in the light of the national curriculum, some schools are finding that there is room for considerable improvement. Indeed, in some cases it looks as though overhauling the stock is more than a little overdue.
Much has been made of the Labour Party's recent survey of 14 LEAs and the finding of reference books dating back to the 1950s or even the 1920s. At the time, that made a good story for the newspapers. I have had a chance to study the matter. It comes under cover of a press release from Walworth Road, complete with some pithy observations from, among others, the Shadow Arts Minister, Mr. Mark Fisher, who is an old friend of mine from my Eton days and, not unexpectedly, it is not entirely free from political bias. I regret the fact that noble Lords opposite managed to carry out the research. I say that because I also wanted to draw attention to the pygmy stories. I shall not question how it happened that this material escaped the reforming zeal of various Labour administrations—and there have been Labour administrations since the reign of George V. Instead, I shall make the much more important point that such obsolete material escaped the notice of all administrations until this Government produced the national curriculum and introduced their reforms. That is the nub of the matter.
It is clear from HMI reports—I am somewhat worried about this because I believe that we are reading different HMI reports, or perhaps they have different dates—that poor provision is often the result of schools' purchasing policies and priorities rather than a shortage of funds. The Government have recognised the fact that many schools will need to make some improvements to their book stock to meet the needs of the national curriculum. The sum of £15 million from the specific grants programme for 1991–92 has been earmarked for the purchase of books related to the national curriculum. I believe that I am right in saying that that would work out at about £1.87 per child. That is my own calculation, but I believe that it is about right. As some of the figures put forward suggested an overall spending on books of less than that per child, one wonders how management is arranged in some schools.
LEAs have submitted bids for all the money available from that fund, and practically every school in the country can be expected to benefit from the

641
grants The Government hope to be able to make the same level of funding available for at least two further years.
That additional support needs to be seen against the general background of local authority spending, because that has to cover the normal, routine replacement of books that should take place all the time. The local authority grant settlement for 1991–92 allows for education authorities in England to spend almost £17.5 billion on education—a 16 per cent. increase on the 1990–91 settlement which considerably exceeds inflation. Given good management of resources overall, that should allow LEAs scope to target additional expenditure where it is most needed. I believe that it is probably needed for books.
Spending on books and equipment has risen from £20 per pupil in 1979–80 to £49 per pupil in 1988–89, the latest year for which complete figures are available. That is a real terms increase of 28 per cent.
Many schools have found that their budget will not go as far as they wish because the price of books has risen much faster than inflation. That was mentioned by various noble Lords. I believe that we are entitled to ask the publishers why that is the case when other parts of the industry have managed to bring down real costs by increased efficiency. I did ask. I shall not go into the replies. They have largely been given to the House by my noble kinsman, although I take issue slightly with him.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may make a comment. I believe that the reason why the price of books has increased so much is that it was kept down over a number of years. Perhaps the noble Earl agrees with me; indeed, he nods.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. It was suggested to me that that was the case but my findings rather refuted it. I am not sure that I have the whole answer to the problem. Against the figures of my noble kinsman, it is suggested that an increasing number of schools go direct to the publishers. That also leaves the problem unanswered.
Whatever the reason, I hope that publishers will realise that the national curriculum works to their advantage by providing a clear framework for teaching and learning. It is to be hoped that with a more clearly defined market they will be able to find ways of trimming their costs.
However, money is not the only need in order to provide a good service for pupils. We need good management as well: sensible purchasing policies, a careful matching of books to the curriculum, and close liaison between library staff and classroom teachers. One of the points that Her Majesty's Inspectorate has made again and again in reports on the implementation of the national curriculum is that as a result of its introduction schools are making enormous strides in planning and managing their curricular provision. HMI makes a similar point in many of its reports on libraries. Good libraries are found where there is good management.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since a large number of secondary schools apparently have no professional librarian it is difficult for teachers to liaise with the non-existent librarian? This is a matter of expenditure; it has nothing to do with good management. If the funds are not there to provide professional librarians in schools, we shall not have them.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this is a matter for the LEAs. They may employ whom they wish. Why do they not employ librarians? Like other noble Lords, I have been in local government. Only last weekend, in the light of this debate, I was talking to a former Labour county councillor who was excited by the management overhaul that the authority was carrying out. If one bureaucrat leaves an authority a saving is made in whatever service it is which amounts to £30,000. That money will buy a great many books.
On management, I can give two examples. One publisher told me—and he was backed up by the chairman of a county council library authority—that in 48 library authorities there were 48 different formats for lending; for example, different forms of reinforcement of the books and different tags to put in them. That is not a matter for the Government to decide; it is for the LEAs to overhaul their management.
Again, on good management, I hear that the Croydon library service is an extremely good example. There is no school library service but different people provide the service in different ways. The Croydon library service distributes more books than any authority in London. Per member of staff, the library sees twice as many members of the public as its nearest rival in London. Thus it is a management problem.
Where schools have not developed a clear idea of how they should use the library for teaching and learning and where communication between library and other teaching staff is poor, libraries become neglected and fail to contribute to effective teaching and learning.
In spite of the headline-grabbing stories about dated stocks, HMI has reported marked improvements in the general management of secondary school libraries since 1985. It has found a positive shift in attitudes over recent years and many LEAs have taken special initiatives on libraries. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, mentioned, in 1989 HMI published Better Libraries. Although some of the contents of that document may be obvious, it has been broadly welcomed and is being used by a great number of schools. Its recommendations are being put into practice.
Schools also, of course, have increasing control over the management of their own budgets under the local management of schools initiative. Schools now have the opportunity to match resources to needs more precisely than before. We usually find that those best placed to take decisions are those who will be implementing them in practice, and this is what LMS will achieve.

643
There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion among us. If I understood the noble Baroness, Lady David, correctly, she mentioned the whim of governors. I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified to run a school than school governors, especially under the reforms that have been introduced. I believe it is a little patronising to suggest that people do not know how to run their schools, especially as parents are appearing on governing bodies in increasing numbers. I believe that LEAs and governors in schools can take the responsibilities we are discussing.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not believe we disagree too much with his comments, although there are some areas of disagreement. In my speech I said that we are not concerned with shuffling moneys about. Rather we are concerned with the total amount of money available. The basis of the speeches made in the House tonight is that there should be an increase in the money available, whether that money is made available to the LEAs, to the governors or to anybody else. The Minister has not dealt with that point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I, like other noble Lords, have served on a local education authority. I served on an LEA for some six years. I fought very hard for an increase in our standard spending assessment. If the noble Lord does not believe that enormous savings can still be made in local government, we shall have to disagree. I have mentioned a 16 per cent. increase in the standard spending assessment for education. I believe the evidence shows that the reforms, together with the pump priming money, are having an effect and we are seeing improvements.
I know that some people are concerned about the effect of LMS on books. They believe that schools will spend the money on other priorities. But the pilot schemes for LMS demonstrated that schools could save money through good management, and that they were prepared to spend the money they saved on books. This means that on top of the extra support we are providing specifically for the purchase of books, savings in individual schools could further increase the money available. More importantly, however, LMS demonstrates that the Government are ready to trust heads and governors with the responsibility of deciding their own priorities for their school.
We have also heard a good deal about the effects of LMS on the future of the schools library service. These local services are of course funded by individual LEAs, and not by central government. So their future is a matter for local decision. LEAs can choose to hold funds centrally to support these services if they wish. The Government have made it clear—this answers a number of points noble Lords have raised—however that they believe that decisions on all matters related to the curriculum are best made at school level. If funds to support school library services are delegated to schools rather than held by LEAs, it will be up to the schools library service to convince schools that it is worth their while to subscribe to the service.
644
I shall of course draw the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, to the attention of my right honourable friend. However, I do not expect him to withdraw his circular on this matter. I heard only today that Lincolnshire has decided to delegate its schools library service. It is proposed that 85 per cent. of the resources be disaggregated to schools through the formula, with 15 per cent. being retained centrally as a discretionary exception to organise and manage the service. The practical effect of this is that, apart from receiving an increased budget share, schools will have to consider for themselves whether or not they wish to take advantage of these services from within their enlarged budget shares. Schools can no longer of course look to receiving these services free of charge.
I recognise that for Lincolnshire the economy of scale of providing books and other resources through the schools library service encourages governors to make full use of it. In that case delegation has taken place because Lincolnshire believes schools are where decisions are made, but it has set itself a challenge in that it wishes the schools library service to continue and Lincolnshire wishes to control it. If it had not felt that that was a challenge which was workable, presumably it would not have taken that course.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister give way just once more? Is he, representing the Government, concerned about the possibility of the collapse of the schools library service in some local authorities where delegation has taken place, or would he regard that as totally unimportant and of no significance?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I want the service to continue. I believe that it will, and I believe also that this is the best way of going forward. It is a form of internal market.
There is HMI evidence to show that the national curriculum is increasing the demand for loans from the schools library service, especially in relation to science. If that demand exists it is difficult to see why there should be any concern as to whether or not the schools want the service.
I have covered some points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, highlighted two aspects of provision of the service—money and expertise. Of course they are important, but he did not mention management. That is the key. The noble Lord mentioned charge capping and the difficulties facing local authorities. I touched on that subject. I spoke to the chief officer in charge of libraries in my home county of Cumbria. He said unexpectedly—and it struck me as a change in culture—"Our motto throughout this authority is to do more for less". That is what it is doing.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the question as to whether any schools have disposed of their libraries. I shall inquire whether the figures are available and let the noble Lord know.
On the question of whether we shall respond to HMI reports, of course we shall monitor them, but it is for the LEAs to respond to HMI reports.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, that is an astonishing remark. HMI reports to the Government. LEAs read, note, and wherever possible implement, the contents of HMI reports, but that is an astonishing thing to say. The Government must take note of the reports. I referred to HMI in my speech as an agent. The relationship is a peculiar one and agent may not be the right term. However, is the Minister saying—because that is the impression that he has given—that LEAs respond to HMI reports and not to the Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may confirm what my noble friend Lord Dormand has said. The senior chief inspector's report is to the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry. I have probably put that incorrectly. I am trying to say that neither the noble Baroness nor I is delivering education. A framework exists and we monitor the position.
It was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Dormand and Lord Addington, and others that there was general under-funding of schools. The Government are not introducing the national curriculum without resources. I have already given the figures, which show that there has been a 16 per cent. increase in funding for education. Support of £270 million for Education Reform Act reforms is being provided through specific grants in 1991–92. As I have said again and again, resources will need to be managed. The Government have been, and remain, committed to improving the management of education because we believe that that is the best way to support effective teaching and learning.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and other noble Lords commented on the general state of school libraries. I acknowledge that there are many school libraries which could be better and that some are definitely poor. However, the overall trend is one of continuous improvement. HMI repeatedly pointed out that there is no simple relationship between resources and quality. However, there is certainly a relationship between good management, organisation, leadership and quality.
At the end of the day one looks at results. In HMI's recent report Teaching and Learning of Reading in Primary Schools of Autumn 1990 it is stated:
"In 80% of the schools standards of reading were satisfactory … or better and in about 30% of those the standards of reading were high".
That must be a reflection of the overall situation. Where the standards were found to be low, the report had this to say:
"Such factors as socio-economic background of pupils, teacher I turnover and resources did not hinder progress with anything like the same force as weaknesses in management and organisation of reading within the class and within the school as a whole".
On resources the same report said:
"Books, materials and equipment for the teaching of reading were in satisfactory supply or better in 85 per cent. of cases".
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about audio-visual aids. I have touched on that matter in the
646
overall provision of the special grants. When I saw his name on the list of speakers I thought that perhaps he would be bringing up the issue of dyslexia. I have a long and complex note which I shall forward to the noble Lord rather than deal with the matter now.
With regard to choice of books, that is a matter for the teaching profession. The noble Baroness, Lady David, declared an impressive list of her interests. I have already complained that in my view—and here we disagree—she seems to underestimate the abilities of governing bodies to run their schools. She asked what the DES will do. We believe that we have established a framework and provided the funds. We shall monitor the results. The noble Baroness also mentioned the Book Trust. The figures that we have from LEAs are for books and equipment. They show LEA expenditure at £49 per pupil, which is a rise of 28 per cent. since 1979–80.
I have been speaking for longer than I expected. If there are any further questions I shall write to noble Lords. However, I should like to mention how grateful I was that my noble friend Lord Eccles, with his great experience, took part in this debate. He said that his experience was that the fruits of a great reform would take 10 years to come to maturity. I hope that that is not so. I hope that this particular reform is showing the beginnings of improvements which I believe will continue.
In conclusion, the Government are taking action in three ways to ensure that there are resources to support the national curriculum. They are giving schools greater freedom to make their own choices about how they use their resources; providing additional support through specific grants; and increasing the overall funding for education. Most important, we believe, is the positive influence exerted by the national curriculum itself on the way in which schools plan and manage effective teaching and learning.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that if he wants me to go home happy he has to tell me that the Government accept overall responsibility for providing the equipment to carry out the national curriculum. My right honourable friend Kenneth Baker was extremely interested in the libraries. He always gave me the assurance that when the national curriculum—which after all is imposed on the local authorities—was put into practice, the Secretary of State would ensure that the provision of library equipment in its broadest sense matched the needs of the new curriculum. Is that so?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure whether I can send my noble friend home happy on the basis that the Government do not run the budget for buying books. They calculate, provide and monitor. They believe that they have the framework whereby education will be properly equipped for these reforms.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.

  IMPORTED CAPTIVE BIRDS: MORTALITIES
  IMPORTED CAPTIVE BIRDS: MORTALITIES
  CHEESE: EC SALES TO JAPAN
  CHEESE: EC SALES TO JAPAN
  DAIRY PRODUCTS: EC EXPORT REFUNDS
  DAIRY PRODUCTS: EC EXPORT REFUNDS
  EC: GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE
  EC: GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON AGRICULTURE
  COAL IMPORTS
  COAL IMPORTS
  JORDAN: OIL SUPPLIES
  JORDAN: OIL SUPPLIES
  JORDAN: FINANCIAL AID
  JORDAN: FINANCIAL AID
  THE GULF WAR: COALITION'S OBJECTIVES
  THE GULF WAR: COALITION'S OBJECTIVES
  HUMAN RIGHTS
  HUMAN RIGHTS
  BALTIC STATES: UK REPRESENTATION
  BALTIC STATES: UK REPRESENTATION
  LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE POLL: REPORTS
  LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE POLL: REPORTS