Sitting of 25 February 1991

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

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress on the privatisation of the electricity industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Following the successful flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies with a total value to the taxpayer of around £8 billion, we are now proceeding with the sale of the two generating companies. I announced on Friday that the total value to the taxpayer of National Power and PowerGen would be more that £4·3 billion. This share offer has now been successfully underwritten. The offer will close on 6 March and dealings will commence on 12 March. The total value of the businesses comprising the electricity supply industry of England and Wales of more than £12 billion makes it by far the largest privatisation ever undertaken in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Viggers: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great skill with which he has undertaken these privatisations. In connection with the regional electricity companies, is not the most pleasing feature the fact that 98 per cent. of eligible employees have taken up shares and become shareholders? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful and sophisticated arrangements that he has put in hand for the underwriting of the generating companies for privatisation. There have already been signs of innovative thinking by the electricity industry and, in the long run, will not the beneficiary be the consumer?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the main purposes of privatising these industries is to bring new thinking into the way they operate. I also agree that one of the pleasing things has been the way in which the employees have taken shares in the company, and many of them are continuing to hold those shares. That is satisfactory.
    Mr. Haynes: I want to know what is going on. I think that the Secretary of State had better have a look at this privatisation of the electricity industry. What about the prices that these people are charging? I thought that the aim of privatisation was to look after the consumer. but consumers in my area are getting a right belting on prices. Is it not high time the Minister had a look at this, or he will not be coming to the Dispatch Box any longer?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman and I obviously read the same newspapers, but the companies have not yet made their proposals for price increases. When they have, they will have to justify them to the regulator, who I know will be looking at them closely.
    Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of privatisation, the vast overwhelming number of commercial and industrial customers are already getting lower electricity prices than they were a year ago, before privatisation, thanks to competition and the ability to shop around?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority are paying lower prices as a direct result of the competitive nature of the regime for commercial and industrial customers.
    Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State talked about bringing new thinking into the industry. Can he confirm that the new thinking started off with his approving a 9·2 per cent. price increase for domestic consumers last year, when the projected rate of inflation, however inaccurate, was 6 per cent. and that the companies are now contemplating increases up to 13 per cent. when the projected rate of inflation is only 5 per cent? That is the kind of new thinking that customers could well do without.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have not yet had any proposals from the companies. As I have said, they will be making their proposals to the regulator, who will have to be satisfied that the increases are justified under the price regime that is included in the licence.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual average level of expenditure on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1974 and 1979 and between 1985 and 1989.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The annual average expenditure by the Department of Energy on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1 April 1975 and 31 March 1979 was £1. 9 million, and between 1 April 1985 and 31 March 1989 the figure was £14·4 million.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which illustrates the commitment of this Government to renewable energies compared with that of the Labour Government. Is not the biggest problem with renewable energy sources the high cost of producing electricity from such sources? Would not it be difficult to get past the House provisions that made little old ladies pay twice or perhaps even more times as much as they would for electricity generated by coal or nuclear energy?
    Mr. Moynihan: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. It is as important for these projects to be environmentally acceptable as for them to be economically competitive. With the introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation we have been able to create a marketplace so that commercially competitive renewable energy projects can come onstream effectively.
    Ms. Armstrong: I hope that the Minister is looking at new projects for possible development and that at some

    629
    stage he will look at one in my constituency, where, as part of an attempt to regenerate Consett, we are considering a wind park on part of the old steel works site. I am not sure that it would exactly replace what was there, but I hope that the Minister will consider these projects carefully, because there are people in my area who still do not have electricity and we hope that these projects will supply electricity to more far flung places.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is important to identify new wind projects. She will be pleased to learn that the largest tranche of research and development expenditure is on wind energy. I am not aware of the specific project to which she referred, but I know that my officials will be only too happy to look in detail at any proposals. We want to give commercially viable wind energy projects as big a push as we can.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no virtue simply in increasing expenditure on research and development on renewable sources of energy for its own sake? Does he further agree that what is needed is the careful examination of each project to see what its potential long-term yield is for the future?
    Mr. Moynihan: I hope that my hon. Friend heard my earlier comments and is satisfied that we are aware of the importance of ensuring that proposed projects are commercially viable. Many are not. The great advantage of having the non-fossil fuel obligation is that we not only back the research and development with increasing resources, but provide a marketplace for those projects to play an important role in the diversity of energy supply on competitive terms.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the reality that for the Government renewables are still the poor relation? Less than £25 million per year is spent on research and development into renewables while more than £95 million is spent on research and development in the nuclear industry. The other day the Government closed down the Camborne geothermal facility with a loss of 30 jobs. The evidence is that the cost of producing geothermal electricity is 31 per kWh, the cost of producing electricity is about 3·5p per kWh and the cost of producing nuclear power is more than 6p per kWh. On all assessments, nuclear power is a bad bargain and renewables are good, but the Government are blind to any sensible opposition.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am sorry to inform the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The hot dry rocks project in Cornwall was not closed down last week. That important project was given a new direction and a boost of £3·3 million for the period 1991 to 1994 so that we can work on it with our European colleagues and make it as economically viable as possible. I spent a day visiting that project. The cost per kilowatt hour to which the hon. Gentleman referred bears no reality to the sort of cost produced from the research on geothermal hot dry rocks, which can be up to 10 times higher than the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. That said, however, it is an important source of potential renewable energy within the European Community and further research is being undertaken to try to make sure that we can make it commercially viable. If we cannot, we cannot put further research and development into that energy source. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, any Government who spend £160 million on renewable
    630
    research and development are committed to renewable energy projects and any Government who increase next year's provision by 20 per cent. more than that for this year are committed to undertaking research and development for commercially effective renewable energy projects.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of existing energy conservation schemes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. Friend and I have received frequent representations about our energy efficiency programmes to which we accord high priority.
    Mr. Knox: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the potential for further energy savings? Is he satisfied that the existing schemes will enable us to achieve those savings?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It has been estimated that further savings of up to 20 per cent. are possible. I am convinced that we shall be able to approach that target through a mixture of regulations, such as the improved building regulations, labelling, advice, and targeted grants such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which directs grant aid to low-income households.
    Mr. Loyden: What encouragement has been given to local government to draught-proof the windows and doors of older houses so that many millions of homes can benefit from the conservation of energy?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that the estate action programme is directing substantial sums of money towards upgrading older council estates. In addition to that, the home energy efficiency scheme is targeted precisely at older dwellings, which are often occupied by low-income households who need grant aid to improve the energy efficiency, draught-proofing and insulation standards of their homes.

    Coal Mines
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pits he expects will still be operating by 1993.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Decisions on future capacity are a matter for the British Coal Corporation, but it is clear that the future of every pit depends crucially on the degree to which management and men are successful in containing costs and continuing their productivity improvements.
    Mr. Mullin: The Minister will be aware that, since the privatisation of electricity, the country has been flooded with cheap coal, which no amount of productivity improvements are capable of competing against. In the unhappy event of the Minister's party winning another general election, not one pit in the north-east will survive. I invite the Minister to deny that.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The future capacity of the north-east coalfield is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. It would not be right artificially to restrict imports of coal and to insulate British industry from overseas competition. The future of that coalfield depends on continuing the productivity improvements of recent

    631
    years, and I pay tribute to the British Coal Corporation and to those who work for it for the 85 per cent. productivity improvement since the coal strike.
    Mr. Hannam: The Government have invested some £7 billion in British Coal since 1979. That is surely proof that the Government see a good future for a competitive coal industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the 85 per cent. productivity increase since the miners' strike is evidence that the coal industry has an important role to play in the future energy market?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree. The Government have put more than £17 billion of grant aid into the coal industry since 1979. That is proof of our financial commitment to the industry. The future prosperity and success of that industry, however, depend on continuing those productivity improvements.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister offer the House some estimate of the effect on the balance of payments deficit, which is already enormous, of our increasing reliance on imported coal, which will become more and more expensive, to the ruinous deprivation of the country?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It would not be to the advantage of the balance of payments or of British industry artificially to restrict imported energy sources. I confirm, however, that until 1993 British Coal has secure contracts with the electricity generators and I anticipate that after 1993 electricity generators will recognise the value of an indigenous source of supply.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the future of the British coal industry lies in the hands of the mineworkers themselves? Is not it marvellous that once the power of stupid trade union leaders such as Arthur Scargill is diluted the men at the coal face respond and have increased their productivity by 87 per cent. since the coal strike?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot improve on my hon. Friend's description of the situation.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister knows full well that the framework of privatisation of the electricity supply industry has thrown British Coal's marketing into chaos. Does he honestly think that the £17 billion investment of which he boasts is a sound investment, given the ending of current contracts in 1993? When will the Government take action not just in the interests of the miners, who have improved their productivity, but in the national interest, instead of increasing the growing energy deficit of this energy-rich country?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is up to the industry to prove the soundness of that investment, but the signs are that management and workers are rising to the challenge and can mine coal competitively.

    Offshore Oil and Gas
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of direct employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in 1990; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs indirectly supported by the industry.
    Mr. Moynihan: Direct employment offshore in 1990 was at an all-time record level of 36,500, some 19 per cent.
    632
    higher than in 1989. The number of those employed indirectly in the oil and gas industry is considerably larger than those working offshore.
    Mr. Marshall: As a former Aberdeen councillor, I welcome that answer as good news for Aberdeen, for the north-east of Scotland and for the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that it shows the efficiency of private enterprise in creating jobs?
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Godman: The expansion is indeed good news for Scotland—if not for my constituency, where unemployment at 13·8 per cent. is no laughing matter. I remind the Minister that Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde is the finest shipbuilding and oil rig construction yard in the United Kingdom. Has he any hope to offer to my oil rig workers and dockers, or anything to say about Scott Lithgow?
    Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that the position for many offshore fabricators is very strong. Their order books are strong. They have opportunities now because levels of investment and activity in the North sea have never been more buoyant. I hope that they will use those opportunities to the full by producing, on time, good-quality products to meet foreign competition.

    Nuclear Power
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the production of electricity in the United Kingdom is currently supplied by nuclear power.
    Mr. Wakeham: In 1990 about 20 per cent. of electricity available in the United Kingdom came from United Kingdom nuclear sources.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the foreseeable future nuclear power has an assured role in generating safe, clean and reliable energy?
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I can confirm that. Nuclear generation is vital to ensure security and diversity of supply and brings with it excellent environmental benefits in that it produces no carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen doxide.
    Dr. Reid: Will the Minister confirm that the largest single industrial user of electricity provided by any source in Scotland is the Ravescraig steel plant? Is he aware of the announcement of a further 1,500 redundancies there? Can he give an assurance that, under a privatised electricity set-up, the costs of the decline of Ravescraig and the demise of the steel industry will not be passed on to the individual electricity consumer in Scotland or in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Wakeham: Questions to do with the steel industry or the Scottish industry are clearly not for me, but under the system that we have introduced industrial consumers generally pay lower prices as a result of the competitive nature of the electricity industry.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that unless more nuclear power stations are built and the review is accelerated, there will be very few new nuclear

    633
    power stations by the turn of the century? Will not that lead to the disintegration of an industry which it is most important to preserve?
    Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about the nuclear industry. As he is aware, a full-scale review of the prospects for nuclear power in the future will be undertaken in 1994, when the Sizewell B project will be nearing completion. That review will have to take all the relevant factors into account.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that—given the progessive unravelling of the beautiful Heath Robinson structure erected by his predecessor, the right hon Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the withdrawal from privatisation of the nuclear industry and the fact that 40 per cent. of generators are now not being sold on the market—by the time of the next election less than 50 per cent. of the electricity-generating industry in England and Wales will be in private hands? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman and his honourable lemmings on the Back Benches think that they voted for in 1988, and if that is what they call a success, we should welcome many more such successes.
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. Very shortly, the generating industry—National Power and PowerGen, that is—will be in the private sector; indeed, they are at this moment. Nuclear Electric will remain in the public sector for the foreseeable future. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts with some view of creative accountancy. The 40 per cent. stake that the Government retain in the privatised companies will be retained for another two years; I have explained what will happen after that.

    Offshore Oil and Gas
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of investment on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990.
    Mr. Moynihan: My estimate of investment in 1990 on the United Kingdom continental shelf is £3·5 billion. That represents a significant increase of around one third on 1989.
    Mr. Smith: Is not that a remarkable achievement by Shell, Esso, British Petroleum and the other oil companies that invest in the North sea? Given the substantial fall in the real price of oil in the past decade, is not it also a tribute to the improved technology there, as well as to the fiscal and regulatory regime governing the area? Will my hon. Friend continue to press Treasury Ministers to ensure that our tax regime encourages marginal investment?
    Mr. Moynihan: The answer to my hon. Friend's first two questions is yes; as for the third, the Government are fully aware that a stable fiscal regime and regulatory framework have been part and parcel of the success of investment in the North sea over the past decade.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister just said, in a kind of coded language, that the Government would allow the tax regime to be shifted in relation to the smaller underground pools of oil. When miners run into narrow seams of coal, however, the Department decides that they are unprofitable—in its language—and closes them. If it is right to use
    634
    every possible effort to maximise oil production, the same should apply to getting out the coal, and pits such as Creswell in my constituency should not be shut.
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood the code.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The Opposition constantly seek to ignore the effects of our indigenous energy, and our investment in oil and gas, on the performance of the United Kingdom economy, while constantly drawing attention to the technology and out-of-date practices in the coal industry. Does not that clearly show that they are people of the past, not of the present—and certainly not of the future?
    Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree. I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the continuing outstanding success of our buoyant oil and gas market.
    Mr. Doran: The Minister will know that a substantial part of the investment that he rightly praised relates to safety improvements. Is he aware that, according to the trade figures announced this morning, our present deficit includes an oil deficit of £109 million compared with the surpluses that we have enjoyed over most of the past decade? Does he agree that the main reason for that deficit is the need to close down platforms for safety modifications? Had the Government taken their job of ensuring safety more seriously, and had they accepted the Opposition's criticisms, the shutdowns would have been unnecessary, the improvements phased and the present large deficits avoided.
    Mr. Moynihan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I agree, however, that the reason for our lower net exports is a temporary reduction in North sea oil production. The first priority must always be the safety of the work force in the North sea. If that means reducing output at any time, so be it.

    Gas Disconnections
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Director General of Ofgas about disconnection for debt.
    Mr. Moynihan: I have had no specific discussions with the Director General of Gas Supply on the subject of disconnection for debt. I can confirm that the number of British Gas customers who have been disconnected because of debt is lower than at any time since 1977, when records were first kept.
    Mrs. Roe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, especially as 3 million new customers have been connected. Does he agree that protection for debtors has increased since privatisation, not decreased?
    Mr. Moynihan: That is absolutely true. From a peak of almost 62,000 in the year ended March 1988, just over 19,000 people have been disconnected for debt.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Is not it also a fact that the drop in disconnections has coincided with an increase in the installation of credit meters, which have an automatic cut-off on what people can pay? As the Government are trying to encourage wage settlements below the rate of inflation, will the Minister tell the electric industry not to increase its prices by more than the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the substantive question, I acknowledge that the offer of a prepayment meter as an alternative to disconnection has played an important role, but the reality is that privatisation and the excellent work of the Office of Gas Supply have been paramount in assisting the gas industry to reduce the number of people who are disconnected for debt.

    Unleaded Petrol
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase since 1989 in the number of petrol-retailing outlets selling unleaded petrol; and what is the level in other EC countries.
    Mr. Moynihan: The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association estimates that, at the end of November 1990, 98 per cent. of filling stations in the United Kingdom sold premium unleaded petrol, compared with about 80 per cent. at the end of 1989 and 20 per cent. at the end of 1988.
    The latest available comparable figures for 1990 in the European Community were: West Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg 100 per cent.; Denmark and Netherlands 85 per cent.; Italy 64 per cent.; Ireland 50 per cent.; France 40 per cent.; Spain 19 per cent.; Greece 11 per cent.; and Portugal 4 per cent.
    Mr. Carrington: Do not those figures, taken in conjunction with those for the sale of unleaded petrol, show the determination of the Government, the industry and the people to reduce the amount of lead in our air? Is it not it possible, perhaps through the European Commission, to encourage our European partners, who are not as environmentally friendly as we are, to improve their actions and environment?
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree that it is important for the Government to continue to pursue that objective throughout the Community.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is welcome that so many petrol stations are making unleaded petrol available, but the Minister understands that the real test is the number of cars using it. What discussions are being held within the Department or with Treasury Ministers and officials to encourage the take-up of unleaded petrol by giving further tax incentives or cuts in petrol prices?
    Mr. Moynihan: The latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The 1990 Budget, which increased the duty differential to nearly 14p a gallon, was important. About seven out of 10 cars are capable of using unleaded petrol. The Department of Energy and other Departments have been promoting a publicity and information campaign to encourage those who can convert rapidly to do so.

    Clean Coal Technology
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what support his Department is giving to the investigation of the prospects for clean coal technology.
    Mr. Wakeham: My Department is currently reviewing coal-related research and development and this summer will publish a document setting out our strategy. Much important work on clean coal technology has already been carried out by British Coal and others.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmentalists should be greatly encouraged by the Government's clear commitment to clean coal technology? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but my right hon. Friend may like to remind them that the Government are contributing £17 million to 15 separate projects.
    Mr. Wakeham: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. The current programme of more than 15 projects which are under way or planned has a contract value of more than £80 million and my Department's contribution is more than £17 million. I am not satisfied that we are doing enough. That is why we have set in hand a study to find out what more can be done.
    Mr. Eadie: It is refreshing for the House to hear candour from the right hon. Gentleman about the investment in clean coal technology. Is he aware that the investment, which is running at about 3 per cent., is pathetic? In the quest for clean coal, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider Monktonhall colliery which, although it produces more or less sulphur-free coal and has received £14 million of investment, has been mothballed. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reopening that colliery? It would result in jobs as well as sulphur-free coal.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of what we are doing about clean coal technology, but Monktonhall colliery is a matter for British Coal's management, not for me.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that clean coal burn technology is important for not only the future of the British coal industry but the environment? Does he agree that it is important also in ensuring that we achieve the maximum use of our indigenous industry? Does he recognise that, although we may be in the lead in terms of research and development and investigations into these techniques, we are somewhat behind in building demonstration plants? Will he undertake to find ways to encourage the building of demonstration plants? That work can be done in various ways. It does not always involve Government money.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, indeed. Recently we announced the provision of an additional £3·7 million towards British Coal's topping cycle project at Grimethorpe. That brings the Government's support for the project this year to £9·2 million and clearly demonstrates our commitment to supporting clean coal technology. We have set up a coal task force, a new advisory body to develop new strategies and project selection methods, and United Kingdom industry is strongly represented on that task force. That shows confidence in the way forward.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the failure to back the demonstration plants which the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) endorsed is putting British plant manufacturers at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and France? Would not it be better to put some money into that work? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that more money was spent tarting up his Department's headquarters than the Government are investing in clean coal technology?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no idea about that last point. I had no responsibility for those matters. I would support

    637
    any project that was worth while and could be shown to have a commercial future. The first projects that we demonstrate must have the possibility of being economically viable in the long term.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal will not have a future as an electricity-generating fuel unless the technologies of decarbonisation are improved to a level at which CO2 emissions are much lower? My right hon. Friend's efforts in that regard are greatly appreciated by people who work in the coal industry, as those developments will give them a future.
    Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows that most of the new power generation projects in the next few years are likely to be gas-fired projects. It is important that research and development should occur so that coal is increasingly thought of as a fuel to be used and is seen to be environmentally safe.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total spent by his Department in the current financial year on promoting energy efficiency.
    Mr. Wakeham: Forecast outturn expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office in 1990–91 is £23·4 million. That represents a substantial increase on expenditure last year of £15 million.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister examine the serious decline in the energy efficiency industry? Figures published recently by the Association for the Conservation of Energy show a 20 per cent. fall in the demand for heating control since 1987, a 34 per cent. fall in the demand for double glazing and a 49 per cent. fall in demand for cavity wall insulation. How can the Government claim to be taking energy efficiency seriously when the industry is in such a serious decline?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman quotes some figures which I do not deny, although I have not checked their accuracy. However, those figures relate to the construction industry and are not out of line with the general cuts in that industry. We have increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. We are anxious to improve energy efficiency because we believe that that is far and away the most important way in which to deal with problems of global warming and CO2. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to remember that the progress of that policy so far has been very encouraging. Over the past 10 years GDP has increased by 25 per cent. while energy consumption is almost unchanged.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    City Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss developments in the prosecution of City fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office on 13 February to discuss matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Attorney-General discussed those matters with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, did he refer to the Harrods swindle and the fact that Graham Jones, the former financial adviser to that company, wrote two letters to the Governor of the Bank of England accusing Harrods of breaking banking regulations, but the Governor refused to reveal anything to a Committee of the House? Why are the Government afraid of taking on Harrods? Why does not the Attorney-General act? Are the Government frightened to death of the real owner of Harrods, the Sultan of Brunei, who bailed out the Government several years ago when the pound was down to near-parity with the dollar?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that the latter part of the question owes much more to ignorance than to malice. The question of Harrods did not feature in my recent discussion with the director. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions made a joint statement in June or July last year stating that, following detailed examination by the Metropolitan police, the conclusion was that insufficient evidence was admissible for criminal proceedings to warrant a prosecution. Each director is always open to further evidence becoming available, but the Bank of England is its own enforcing authority.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and his staff have prosecuted a large number of offences of serious white collar fraud and that they have not regarded the importance of the defendant as a criterion in taking that person to court? One example was Guinness. Is not that a clear sign that people who commit serious white collar crime will be treated in exactly the same way as a burglar or a shoplifter?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to him. In the two years that the Serious Fraud Office has operated, it has prosecuted to conviction more than two thirds of the people whom it has charged. The Government have been responsible for not only the introduction of the Serious Fraud Office, but before that—in the days before the Crown prosecution service—the introduction and resourcing of the fraud investigation group in the DPP's headquarters. The Government have also legislated for the confiscation of proceeds of crime. Of course, the prosecuting authorities pay no regard to personalities. That is the answer to those who endlessly snipe from a basis of ignorance at the Government's response to the challenge of fraud.

    Statutes
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest date to which statutes in force are up to date.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The publication of new Acts in statutes in force is up to date as at 11 February 1991, other than part of one 1990 Act. Information on the repeal of whole Acts is up to date as at 1 January 1991. Information on the amendment, or partial repeal, of existing Acts is brought up to date periodically.
    Mr. Spearing: Even if they are brought up to date periodically, does the Solicitor-General agree that statutes in force, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, can never be up to date because statutes enforceable in the

    639
    United Kingdom include self-acting regulations of the European Economic Community? Does the Solicitor-General agree that, since agreement on the package for 1992 involving financial and commercial matters, the change in enforceable statutes is now even greater? Should not there be some warning in front of the volumes of statutes in force to put lawyers and others on their guard?
    The Solicitor-General: Lawyers who advise on matters relating to the European Community are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. The longer-term methods for dealing with statutes in force must be computerisation and projects on that are coming forward for financial approval.

    Law Society
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the president of the Law Society to discuss matters of concern to the legal profession.
    The Attorney-General: No meeting is scheduled at present between myself and the president of the Law Society, with whom I enjoy a warm relationship.
    Mr. Viggers: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He will know of the Law Society's interest in judicial appointments. It is concerned that solicitors should be more readily appointed to the Bench and that the areas from which appointments o the Bench are made should be more broadly based. I understand that meetings are planned shortly with the Lord Chancellor, but has my right hon. and learned Friend any comments to make on the position at present?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Lord Chancellor will listen with great care to all suggestions made to him with a view to broadening the range from which judicial appointments are made. As for solicitors, although candidates are, naturally, considered on their merits, the Lord Chancellor is anxious to encourage more solicitors to put themselves forward for judicial appointment when they have reached the appropriate age and standing. He consults more widely than ever before on this matter and is evaluating the results of a pilot scheme designed to improve the methods by which solicitors are identified for potential judicial appointments.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General detect any concern on the part of the Law Society about the inability of senior members of the judiciary to distinguish between innocence and guilt? Does he have any plans to take action on that? My question is motivated neither by ignorance nor by malice.
    The Attorney-General: I do not answer for the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman will know that any judicial system is only as good as the quality of the evidence fed into the trials over which judges preside. The judges hold the ring and enforce the rules. Although every effort must be made—the hon. Gentleman knows that every effort is made—to rectify any miscarriage of justice that may later be found to have occurred, the people of this country acknowledge that our judiciary is of a high standard.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public's confidence in members of the Law
    640
    Society would be greatly enhanced by the setting up of the legal ombudsman? Will he report on how that system is progressing?
    The Attorney-General: This is the age of the ombudsman and I am sure that his arrival has been generally welcomed. However, it is too early for us to assess what progress he is making.
    Mr. Fraser: When the Attorney-General meets the president of the Law Society, what will he be able to do to assuage what the Lord Chancellor called the perfectly genuine cries of hardship from legal aid practitioners? What will be the percentage increase for legal aid work that should take place after 1 April this year and what proposals does he have for easing the cash flow for legal aid practitioners who are suffering from high interest rates and the fall-off of work that used to be subsidised by the commercial and conveyancing sectors?
    The Attorney-General: These are all important matters which the Legal Aid Board keeps under review.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 4 February, Official Report, columns 14·15, what representations he has received on the extent to which the principle of international law relating to minimisation of civilian casualties has been adhered to during carpet-bombing in the Gulf conflict, and whether these civilian losses are proportionate to the military advantage expected.
    The Attorney-General: I have received two letters from the public about the minimisation of casualties. I should emphasise that allied forces have instructions to attack only military targets or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Attorney-General aware that on Saturday night I rang the ever-courteous clerk at Downing street to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had been consulted about the use of napalm in the Gulf? She in turn consulted Sir Charles Powell and the answer came back that it was far from clear. As a member of the War Cabinet, will the Attorney-General clarify whether the use of napalm, the horror weapon of the Vietnam war which gave us the image of the burning girl running in sheer horror, is legal in international law?
    The Attorney-General: There is no convention or instrument of international law bearing on the use of napalm. However, its use, like that of all weapons, is governed by the principles that I described when I last answered the hon. Gentleman's question regarding the minimisation of casualties three weeks ago. To those on the receiving end of any of the modern weapons of war, each one probably qualifies as a horror weapon.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My most recent visit included both Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa. I was able to discuss recent developments and future prospects with political leaders in both countries and to see some of the aid projects that we are assisting. During my visit, I announced a further 10,000 tonnes of food aid for Mozambique and a number of new commitments for teacher training, rural and community development projects and student awards for black South Africans.
    Mr. Townsend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the apparent success of her visit. It was billed as an opportunity for her to have discussions on political reform in South Africa. Will she give the House the benefit of her conclusions?
    Mrs. Chalker: I can genuinely tell the House that I was most impressed by the speed with which the moves towards political reform are taking place. The week that I was there saw the 12-hour meeting between the African National Congress and the Government—two days later, on 15 February, good progress was announced. It is clear that President de Klerk and his Government are determined to move ahead as quickly as possible to repeal not only the Group Areas Act, but the land acts and the population registration acts. While we were there, during the time of the meeting on 12 February, an order was made to obviate the need for any child to be registered by race. We should encourage good steady progress and the repeal of all apartheid acts by recognising what the South African Government are doing.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of continuing the exciting developments of political reform in South Africa should be highlighted by increasing the openness of the South African market to international trade? In addition, our aid programme should be geared particularly to assisting community development. It is much more important to develop that aspect of South Africa than simply to worry about the principle of voting.
    Mrs. Chalker: I should be wrong not to say that the principle of voting is important. We hope that the all-party congress to discuss the modalities of the new constitution will proceed apace. Of course, it is critical that we lift the bans holding back the progress of black South Africans. South Africa needs investment if it is to provide training and job opportunities to young black South Africans. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for welcoming our announcement not only to give more than £500,000 over four years for teacher training, but to support other projects that will lead to training and work for young black South Africans so that they can take their rightful place in the new South Africa.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most encouraging features about British Government aid to developing countries in recent years has been the improvement in its quality and effectiveness? During her visit to Mozambique in particular, was she able to see that improvement in effectiveness taking place?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, I was. I went up to Magude and then further up the Limpopo railway line where the workers are doing work with our money at the same time and so improving that line. I saw work in the port and work on power stations. It is going well and the quality is high.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her discussions showed that courage and persistence are needed by Nelson Mandela, Chief Buthelezi and President de Klerk in trying to overcome the prejudices and provocations that are still likely to unsettle the path to one person, one vote and to full economic development?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes. We hope that all parties will get together to join in the process of peaceful change. I stressed that to all whom I met—the Pan Africanist Congress, the ANC, Inkatha and AZAPO—the Azanian People's Organisation. I hope that there will soon be progress.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Was one of the views that the Minister reached on her visit that the European Community should increase its regional allocation from the figure agreed under Lomé IV?
    Mrs. Chalker: In fact, Lomé IV will not apply to South Africa, but it applies to Mozambique. We shall have a debate tomorrow night on the details of that. I shall be able better to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at that time, because it needs to be answered at length.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister confirm that what is needed in South Africa, as well as peace, is food? Is it true that a large part of the allocation of moneys that she announced will be held over until the beginning of the financial year?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady does not understand the progress of giving food aid. When we are asked for help, we ask in what way that help can most aptly be applied. Sometimes it is with transport costs and sometimes it is with transport equipment, but all that we have learnt in recent years is that we must keep the food pipeline full. We are now nearly at the end of February. Food is needed from April onwards. That is when it will get there and that is what has been arranged.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Minister have the opportunity to discuss with conservationists in southern Africa the impact of the construction of the northern buffalo fence in the Okavango region of Namibia? Is the Minister aware that that fence has been constructed because of the requirements of the EC to establish a foot and mouth disease-free range, but that its impact on the wild creatures—elephants, giraffes, buffalo and wildebeest—is catastrophic? Will she consult the authorities in Namibia to call a halt to the construction of that fence until a proper environmental investigation of its impact has been made?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I understand it, the authorities in Namibia have not been concerned with this matter—it involves the authorities in Botswana. As the hon. Gentleman knows from questions that I have already answered to him, we are looking into this matter most carefully.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Although additional assistance for Mozambique is welcome, does not the Minister realise that an emergency appeal made by Mozambique and the United Nation's last year for £76 million to help with famine, refugees and the effects of war has still not been met? However, the Minister said—I am very puzzled by this—in an interview in the environment section of The Guardian on Friday:
    "If I needed more money, I could go and get it."
    Is she telling the House that despite the fact that 27 million people in Africa are starving and crying out for help, she has not even bothered to go to the Treasury to ask for more money to meet their needs? If that is the case, she is failing them and failing in her job.
    Mr. Chalker: First, it is 29 million people who may be at risk of starvation in 25 African countries. We are extremely well aware of the problem. Secondly, we have planned our expenditure and we have planned our
    644
    provision with the non-governmental organisations which I met last week to make sure that we keep the pipelines as full as we can. However, it simply cannot be left to Britain alone. That is why I have written to all other major aid donors to make sure that they make adequate contributions and we shall carry on doing so ourselves.

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of children in sub-Saharan Africa who are likely to be orphaned as a result of AIDS; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: In the analysis for UNICEF, covering 10 African countries, the data are all estimated and based on selected assumptions. Therefore, the data must not be used as though they were exact. They can indicate only that during the 1990s between 3 million and 5·5 million of the 50 million children under 15 years of age by 1999 may be without mothers.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that according to the ODA's own research, one eighth of all children in the Rakai district of Uganda are orphaned and that that may be connected with the 30 to 40 per cent. HIV positivity rate among young adults there. If that trend continues unabated in sub-Saharan Africa, is not a disaster looming?
    Mrs. Chalker: We believe that the situation in Rakai may be far worse than in other areas. As I tried to explain in my letter of 18 February, it is not right to extrapolate from those figures to the rest of Africa. When dealing with this terrible disease, we must beware speculation. We are doing a great deal through the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS to help with the AIDS factor and we shall continue to do so.

The Gulf
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The final phase for the liberation of Kuwait and the achievement of the United Nations resolutions was launched in the early hours of Sunday 24 February. After more than six months of international endeavour to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis, the continuing refusal of Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions, and the rejection of the final deadline from the coalition, left us no alternative but to proceed with the final ground campaign. The need for this was further confirmed by the fact that, at the very time that Tariq Aziz was still purporting to negotiate in Moscow, Saddam Hussein was giving orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait and its oil fields, and for further outrages against its citizens.
The land operations involve forces of no fewer than 11 countries: the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, France, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and, of course, Kuwait. They have now been under way for 38½ hours. So far, progress has been rapid and relatively little opposition has been encountered.
Excellent planning and preparation and, above all, determination have enabled the coalition forces rapidly to penetrate the extensive obstacle belt that the Iraqis had constructed both along the Saudi-Kuwait border and along a substantial part of the Saudi-Iraq border.
To the east of that front, coalition forces have now advanced well into Kuwait and have taken a significant number of prisoners. Many of the Iraqi units encountered surrendered almost immediately.
To the west, United States, United Kingdom, Saudi and French forces have mounted an operation into Iraq against Iraqi forces supporting the occupation of Kuwait. Some elements are encircling Iraqi units; others are breaking through defensive positions and beginning to engage Iraqi units directly. The 1st British Armoured Division is fully involved in the thrust and is now moving steadily forward.
The Saudis have announced that the number of prisoners of war taken by the coalition has now risen to 20,000. Casualties on the coalition side have been very light. As the House may be aware, two British soldiers lost their lives in the days immediately before the start of the ground offensive, and their families have been told of their deaths. On my latest information, there have been no British casualties in the main advance.
In support of the land advances, allied air forces, including British aircraft, have continued their attacks both on strategic targets in Iraq and on the Iraq ground forces in Kuwait and Iraq. The attacks are continuing in spite of poor weather conditions and without serious interference from the smoke of burning oil wells.
Maritime and amphibious forces in the northern Gulf are playing their part in the coalition attack. In particular, the Royal Navy is playing a crucial role in mine clearance operations. During the operations last night the Iraqis fired a Silkworm missile, which was destroyed by a Sea Dart fired from HMS Gloucester.
It is vital that we give all the support that we can to the coalition forces in their challenging task. One of the key advantages is the lack of knowledge that the Iraqis have about our exact positions and plans. We must preserve
646
that advantage. That is why we have been so concerned to restrict any information about the military operations that could be of help to the enemy at a critical time. I understand the great interest of the whole country in the progress of our forces, and particularly among the families of all those involved, and we shall do all that we can to give accurate information, provided that it can be done safely and without putting lives at risk. In the meantime, we look for the full understanding and co-operation of all those reporting and commenting on the battle.
This further phase of the campaign has started well, and every credit is due to General Schwarzkopf and all the coalition forces. However, they know that the Iraqi forces in the front line are their least capable and likely to be of the lowest morale.
The news so far has been good. There may be days ahead when it is more difficult. But whatever the ups and downs, our forces know that they have the support of all the House and the nation. Our prayers and our best wishes go with them as they complete the task.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I recognise the need to avoid making helpful information available to the enemy, and realise that that precludes the disclosure of some of the details that the House and the media may wish to hear. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I express sympathy with the families who have already lost loved ones in the conflict and relief at the low number of casualties and the high number of prisoners taken. I am sure that that is attributable in no small way to the bravery and professionalism of our troops.
I am sure that the whole House will recognise that responsibility for the intensification of the conflict lies with Saddam Hussein and his unwillingness to allay coalition misgivings about the failure of the laudable Soviet attempt to secure a last-minute peace settlement guaranteeing an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal from Kuwait. Could anyone accept the strength of a Foreign Minister's assurance that he could commit his troops to withdraw from a country while his President and Commander-in-Chief was giving orders to the same troops in the same country to put that country's land to the torch and its people to the sword?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the incursion into Iraqi territory by coalition forces is designed to cut off the Iraqis retreating northwards out of Kuwait and does not represent an alteration in the war aims? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the arrangements being made to assist in curbing the oil well fires? Can he tell the House whether napalm was being used by allied forces and, if so, for what purpose?
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister was in contact with President Gorbachev at some time between his last statement to the House on Friday and Saturday's deadline? Will he tell us the latest and most up-to-date position of British forces?
Opposition Members give their full support to our troops and the coalition forces at this time of peril. We share their determination that Kuwait should be liberated. We do so not in any spirit of complacency, which would be as foolish as it would be dangerous, nor with any sense of euphoria, which would be as insensitive as it would be inappropriate in view of the dangers ahead; we give that

647
support in a spirit of determination that a victorious conclusion for the military forces of the United Nations can be accomplished as speedily and decisively as possible.
Mr. King: I am very grateful for, and I know that the House very much appreciates, both the content of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the manner in which he responded to my statement. It is no secret that it is of the greatest support to our forces to know the strength of the support right across the House of Commons as they undertake this difficult and challenging task. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in touch with President Gorbachev, with whom he had a 45-minute conversation on Saturday morning. That was part of a wide consultation, including with Presidents Bush and Mitterrand, and the other leaders of the coalition. Indeed, a feature of the coalition has been the close contact that has been maintained, to which my right hon. Friend attaches great importance.
The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about napalm. I am pleased to confirm that it was used and that it proved extremely effective in tackling one of the difficulties in the obstacle belt—the oil-filled trenches to which the Iraqis intended to set fire at a time of their convenience. Instead, we arranged to set fire to them with napalm at a time of our convenience so as not to disrupt the attack. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to confirm that.
I appreciate also the support that the hon. Gentleman has given for the need to show some restraint at present about the flow of information. There is, of course, acute interest among all of us and the entire country about what is happening, but we must respect the fact that this is a challenging campaign. It has begun well, but we are now entering the critical phase of the land battle and it is vital that we give our forces all support at this time.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House will want to bear in mind what the Secretary of State said in his statement. I propose to give precedence today to those hon. Members who were not called following the statement on Friday. I ask for brief and careful questions.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Back Benchers wish to express their support for the coalition forces, and especially for our own forces, in addition to the support for them that has already been expressed by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)? As this is Kuwait's national day, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for the House to express its admiration for the conduct of those Kuwaitis who have been allowed to remain in Kuwait in the face of the plunder, looting and terror that has been wreaked on the Kuwaiti people by the armed forces and the secret police of Iraq? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that conduct of Saddam Hussein is another reason why it was right not to delay the ground offensive any longer?
Mr. King: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I am sure that he is right to draw attention to the role and position of the Kuwaitis. I suspect that I was not the only hon. Member who heard that moving
648
comment on the radio earlier today when one Kuwaiti officer was asked whether he felt frightened or any fear: "Why should I? I am going home.- Recognition of the fact that the home to which the Kuwaiti forces go has been tragically and awfully disfigured should redouble our determination to see that home liberated at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I express to General Sir Peter de la Billiere and all those under his command our congratulations and fervent hopes for a speedy outcome to the land battle with the minimum of casualties? From the properly guarded information that the Secretary of State has given the House, it appears that the allies may be set for a successful military outcome. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a successful political outcome will depend on a proper judgment as to the time when hostilities should cease?
Mr. King: I am sure that the answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. We have made absolutely clear where we stand. We are determined to see the United Nations resolutions implemented, and peace and stability restored to the area. Those have been our abiding concerns. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to his hon. and right hon. Friends for their support at this testing time for our forces. We can be very proud of the way they have conducted themselves under the leadership of General Sir Peter de la Billiere. I spoke to the general about 30 minutes ago, and he confirmed that, within the last hour, the first armoured division had taken its first 100 Iraqi prisoners. As the division moves forward, it is coming into contact with more capable Iraqi units. I have no doubt at all that our soldiers will give an excellent account of themselves.
Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend, in passing on our congratulations and thanks to all our troops in the Gulf, acknowledge the debt that we owe also to all the staffs in this country from the people at the Ministry of Defence at High Wycombe to those in depots up and down the country—who have striven to make this operation, which has been a logistical nightmare, such a success? Will he acknowledge also that what has happened in the last 24 hours fully justifies the length, severity and determination of the air assault, which has come under so much criticism in some sections of the media?
Mr. King: We hope that this will be a short, sharp campaign with the minimum of casualties. As my hon. Friend has said, the opportunity to make it so owes a tremendous amount to the success, perseverance, courage and determination of all the air crews. Over the past weeks, those crews performed with great skill to ensure that on the battlefield the balance was tilted in favour of the coalition.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the credits do not stop there. In a very real sense, this has been a team effort. I am thinking, for instance, of the armed service units in Germany that surrendered some of their equipment and provided all the support they could, and of many civilians. Let us not forget how many British civilians are serving in what is a war zone to make sure that our forces, as well as Saudi and other forces, get the support that they need. I am very proud to play whatever part I can in what has been a remarkable team effort.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the very day on which British troops were being committed to battle in the Gulf, a vicious attack was launched on troops in the South Armagh region of the United Kingdom, not very far from where the Prime Minister had displayed such courage a few days earlier? Is the Secretary of State aware that this kind of treachery results from the warped thinking of the republican movement, whose attitude is that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity? Is he aware that such thinking and such action can be met only with firm resolution and resolve and that they cannot be dealt with by concessions, any more than can the actions of Iraq?
Mr. King: Bearing in mind the personal threats that have been made against its members, the present Government have done as much as have any Government to make it clear that we shall make no concessions to, and that we have no respect for, terrorism from whatever quarter it comes. I know that that attitude is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman-is right to draw attention to the fact that in the days before hostilities started, Saddam Hussein sought to intimidate and to threaten terrorism. I think that we can fairly claim that that did not alter our judgment and that it did not lessen one iota the determination of anybody in this House.
Mr. Michael Colvin: While paying tribute to the courage and skill of the allied forces, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on what I hope will have been Saddam Hussein's last speech, in which, following the announcement of the final phase in the campaign to free Kuwait, he called once more for a so-called jihad, or holy war, against the infidel? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that this is a holy war? As he has stated, the allied forces include eight contingents from Arab countries. Those contingents come as representatives of the United Nations to help a small Arab country which was seized by a tyrannical Arab neighbour. For Saddam Hussein—a member of the Ba'ath party, and therefore a non-believer—to make such a claim is surely the sickest of sick jokes.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant Arab contingents taking part in the ground campaign and to the determined way in which they are playing their part. None of those countries believed Saddam Hussein, and it is becoming increasingly clear, with the willingness of so many to surrender, that fewer of his countrymen believe him either.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Should not our thoughts be going out to those who are prisoners of war in Iraq? In particular, will the Minister make it clear that there will be no end to hostilities until we have a categorical assurance about the safe passage and return of prisoners of war?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We have never forgotten the position of our prisoners of war. I am sure that the House shares the concern that the last we saw of them was the pictures of two of our pilots on Iraqi television, and that we have had no news of others. The hon. Gentlemen will be aware that, in the earlier requests about the conditions that we would
650
agree for a ceasefire, we made it clear that the safe and immediate return of our prisoners of war was an absolute requirement.
Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend say a word about the extent of Saddam Hussein's scorched earth policy in Kuwait? In particular, can he confirm that the Parliament building has been set on fire? Does he agree that those responsible for such actions should be held accountable when the fighting ceases?
Mr. King: Figures have been given of 600 or 700 oil fires burning in Kuwait. There are reports of a programme of destruction of buildings in Kuwait. I have heard it said that the Parliament building and certain main hotels have been destroyed. Information on this has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that instructions have been given for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait, as I said in my statement.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State will be aware that the House agrees with that part of his statement in which he said that we must not put lives at risk by giving more accurate information, but what about giving accurate information to families? Will he make sure that all families know whom to contact at all hours of the day and night, because they need reassurance? There is nothing like loneliness to intensify fear.
Mr. King: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is what is happening. If any right hon. or hon. Members have worries about the arrangements in their areas, I should be grateful if they would first check whether such arrangements are effective. If they have any query or uncertainty, I know that the office of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will follow that up. We have made the most thorough arrangements we can to help all the families—and, as hon. Members know, they are not just in this country. The husbands of some 10,000 wives in Germany are away in the Gulf. It is important to remember those families as well.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are behind the troops in the Gulf as they battle for the freedom of Kuwait? Furthermore, they welcome the call of Her Majesty the Queen for the nation to pray, and their thoughts are especially with the contingent of Ulstermen in the Gulf. Can the Secretary of State give us any information about the welfare of that contingent? Can he give us an assurance that it will be the Government's policy to bring to justice those who have carried out the atrocities in Kuwait?
Mr. King: I can indeed confirm that our thoughts are with our forces at this time, and no less with our forces from Northern Ireland. On the information available to me, although I have not yet checked this, I think it probable that the first members of the British forces whom the Iraqi prisoners of war met were from Northern Ireland and I am sure that they were given a good welcome. We support the comments of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the allied ultimatum, with its reference to withdrawing to the position of 1 August, was quite meticulous in remaining within the United Nations mandate, whereas the Soviet proposal absolved Saddam

651
Hussein not only of the crimes that he committed before Saturday but of the torching of Kuwait and the intensification of the killing of Kuwaiti citizens?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman makes a perceptive point. There must be many people in Moscow who felt that they were negotiating in good faith but who now feel singularly betrayed by what they have found was happening and what Saddam Hussein's instructions were while Tariq Aziz was in Moscow.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that rumours persist of the most abominable atrocities in Kuwait? Will he welcome the statement made today by Prince Khalid bin Sultan in his military briefing that those responsible for atrocities in Kuwait will be held accountable when the war is over?
Mr. King: Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when the invasion of Kuwait took place, and I have made it clear that all individuals will be held personally responsible for their actions.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been excellent co-ordination plans for helping wounded troops from the battlefield to hospital, but that there has been no such co-ordination for counselling, psychiatric care, social services, rehabilitation, jobs and adapted housing for wounded personnel? As those matters are covered by a wide variety of Departments, will the Secretary of State recommend to the Prime Minister the appointment of a special Minister to co-ordinate all those necessities for service personnel?
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may not fully appreciate the work that has been done—and not just in terms of information on casualties. Counselling services, are available 24 hours a day throughout the country on a more comprehensive basis than ever before in our history. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the best news today is the low level of British and other allied casualties? Will he further accept that battle accidents can cause as many casualties as enemy action? Does he therefore agree that the long training, great skill and leadership that has gone into the preparation for this struggle reflects great credit on our service men and those of the coalition forces?
Mr. King: The whole House will listen with respect to my hon. Friend, who obviously has knowledge of these matters. It is no secret that, even before the tragic accidents which affected United States forces a little earlier in this campaign, we were giving great attention to the risk of accidents to our forces. The greatest possible attention is being paid to avoiding that. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have noticed yesterday that the speed of advance in certain places caused problems and that great care was taken, particularly by Jaguar pilots, to change their targets so as to make sure that there was no risk of such an accident.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, amid the real qualms that hon. Members will have about a ground war, none can doubt that the allied coalition went that extra mile for peace? Whatever doubts hon. Members may have about
652
the conduct of the war, and whatever their residual anxiety about whether the allied armies will be confined to the clear lines of the United Nations mandate, is the Minister aware that, provided that the UN mandate is observed, there can similarly be no doubt that the allied armies will be fighting a just war, that they will be in the right and that they will include no more formidable an asset than our 1st Armoured Division?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I heard one of my hon. Friends say that we have gone not one, but 20 extra miles. It is true that we went an extra mile, and an extra mile again, even before the air campaign was launched and yet again with the attempts to see if there could be a resolution before it was necessary to launch the ground campaign. We have tried very hard in that respect. I hope that we shall now see the successful achievement of the United Nations resolutions which, I make it absolutely clear, remains our objective.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if five armchair generals were to go on television or on radio discussing plans and dispositions, it is likely that the majority of them would propose a staff solution? As that solution is likely to be of interest to the Iraqis, would it not be better for those armchair generals to desist for the safety of our forces?
Mr. King: It is true that because of our air supremacy and strength in other respects, and because of their own lack of communications, the Iraqis are short of knowledge as to where our forces are and their operations. One of the few sources at present available to the Iraqis are radio and television broadcasts. Therefore, it is vital that we do not convey information to them through those media that may be of value.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Was not President Bush's purpose in aborting the last chance of avoiding a ground war, with its attendant casualties, to ensure the destruction of Iraq's military capabilities so as to oblige his ally, Israel, with which there is a strategic alliance and which has wished the destruction of Iraqi forces ever since the Gulf war started?
Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would make that intervention and address those remarks to the Arab members of the coalition, who are bound in our joint actions at this time, but I think that they would regard his intervention as an extremely silly remark.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Since the Iraqis have set fire to more than 200 wells, has my right hon. Friend any idea as to the quantity of natural resources that have been destroyed? When the war is over and we are trying to win the peace, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Kuwaitis, as compensation, part of the Rumailia field that they do not presently own and also part of Zubeir?
Mr. King: The figures of the number of wells that have been destroyed are not absolutely clear at the moment. I understand that what has effectively been lost in the present fires is the current rate of production of oil naturally emerging which does not mean the long-term extinction of the oil reserves.
Mr. John Cartwright: Since one of the most powerful arguments for launching the ground offensive

653
was the intensification of the mediaeval barbarity inflicted on the Kuwaiti people by the Iraqi occupying forces, can the Secretary of State assure us that in the current debate about war aims the future safety and security of Kuwait will be high on the list of coalition priorities?
Mr. King: Yes, I can. I have made it clear that we are liberating Kuwait, and we seek to ensure that Kuwait stays liberated. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because at each stage of this tragic conflict that none of us sought, Saddam Hussein seems to have gone out of his way to confirm us in the rightness of our judgment.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Saddam Hussein really believed that Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq, the destruction of the oil installations was a peculiar way of showing it? Does he also agree that it is essential that an environmental team should be in train now, ready to go into Kuwait at the earliest possible moment to deal with the destruction of that country's environment?
Mr. King: The hon. Member makes a perceptive and fair first point. As for his second point, I understand that the Kuwaiti Government are working on it now.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that my constituents have been subjected to a politically motivated peace campaign which has been an embarrassment to people of genuine good will and peace? Does he further understand that most of my constituents wholeheartedly support the coalition and are not much interested in impartiality? They are partial to their own troops and their own side, and they would be angry if they received the sort of so-called impartial reports that the correspondents have lately been sending us.
Mr. King: I have never doubted where the true views of the people of Yorkshire lie. I certainly understand the views of my hon. Friend's constituents. The longer the crisis has developed, the more this country and the world have recognised the need for the action that we are taking; and I have certainly felt that strong support at this difficult time.
Mr. Jim Lester rose——
Hon. Members: That is two Conservative Members in a row.
Mr. Speaker: I know. I made a mistake earlier when I called two Opposition Members, so now I am balancing things up.
Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the military objectives of the coalition forces in Iraq are fully contained within our declared war aims and the United Nations resolutions?
Mr. King: I can confirm that.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can anyone seriously claim that this military operation is under the control of the United Nations when the United Nations Security Council has in effect been suspended and the United States of America is calling all the shots and commanding all the coalition forces, including the British
654
forces? How many more young people have to die before the politicians have the guts to tell the military to call a ceasefire and to make every effort through the United Nations to find a peaceful negotiated solution?
Mr. King: The hon. Member could make that contribution only if he refused to believe the evidence of what is happening in Kuwait. I heard him ask how many more young men would die, seeming blithely to ignore the appalling suffering and the outrages that have been committed in Kuwait. How many more people have to die before we can speedily complete this campaign and Kuwait can be liberated?
Mr. Robert Banks: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the numbers of tanks and vehicles and the quantity of equipment captured by the allied forces? As the campaign draws to a close, as we all hope that it shortly will, will the allied forces continue to give full attention to eliminating military targets which pose a threat to the future safety of Kuwait?
Mr. King: I can confirm that we are continuing the air campaign in spite of the poor weather, seeking to ensure that strategic areas which might be involved in the resupply of the forces in the Kuwait theatre are sufficiently inhibited.
I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures on the capture of equipment, but just before I came to the House I saw the latest press briefing given by Brigadier General Neale of the United States, in which he gave further figures about substantial numbers of T72 tanks and spoke of tanks in republican guard units now on the move which had been captured or destroyed. However, it is clear that the figure is changing rapidly.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people in this country would have gone the extra mile—indeed, an extra 10 miles—before sending 17-year-olds into battle? What assurance, if any, can he give to those who have expressed concern about sending 17-year-olds with our forces into the land war?
Mr. King: I met a 17-year-old in Germany who was told that he was to be left behind because he was too young to go with his unit. His protests at not being allowed to go with the other forces showed clearly the tremendous morale and mutual support in the regiments and units that went to the Gulf.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whenever there is a conflict, many young Birmingham people are involved—[ Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Those people hope that one clear development will come out of the justifiable and dreadful Armageddon that has overtaken Saddam Hussein and his forces is that it will help to deter other petty Saddam Husseins from embarking on such dreadful adventures, which bring misery to their own people and to the rest of the world.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the importance of the position taken by the United Nations Security Council, and to the reason why the Security Council gave authority to member states to use all

655
necessary means to ensure that United Nations resolutions were observed. That is what we are doing, and if our aim is successfully achieved, it will strike a blow for better peace and security in the world in future.
Mr. David Winnick: When all is said and done, do not all of us—in the House and in the country at large—owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all the allied forces, who are engaged in fighting a monstrous tryanny which invaded, occupied, raped and pillaged a neighbouring country and, even now, continues to permit the foulest of crimes? Those responsible should certainly be brought to justice.
As for the consequences for ordinary Iraqi soldiers, surely the choice now lies in their hands. If they want to save their lives, they should surrender to the allies as quickly as possible—as, indeed, many are doing. Otherwise, many will undoubtedly be cut down and destroyed in battle; they will be dying for no purpose, and on behalf of a regime which holds them in utter contempt.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has put very eloquently—as he has done on other occasions—feelings which are, I believe, shared by all hon. Members who see the necessity of facing aggression in this way.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Navy's contribution in clearing mines and protecting United States battleships has been out of all proportion to the size of its force?
Mr. King: I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Navy had made a major contribution. There is no doubt that at present the Royal Navy, and especially with its skills in mine clearance, is playing a leading and crucial part in the amphibious and maritime contribution io the campaign in the northern Gulf.
Mr. Dave Nellist: We have recently heard statements from the Minister in the Al-Sabah dictatorship that two years of martial law would follow the liberation of Kuwait. We have also heard repeated statements from Britain and America about hopes that another section of the Iraqi army would topple Saddam Hussein, leaving a dictatorship in charge. It is increasingly likely that the allied forces will occupy at least southern Iraq, and will stay for a considerable time. Where are the freedom and democracy for which so many young men and women from this country have been asked to die?
Mr. King: I should have thought that, on this of all afternoons, the hon. Gentleman could express some support for all our constituents who are in harm's way, and whom we wish God's speed in the hope of an early and safe conclusion to the conflict.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is it not a fine tribute to the Royal Air Force air crew and ground crew, many of whom come from the north of England, that so many of the targets which could have posed a threat to the ground forces this morning had already been destroyed before the troops arrived there? Will the RAF's continuing quest for the Scud launch sites be continued in the next few days so as to ensure that all those dangerous and mischievous missiles are destroyed?
Mr. King: Yes, the campaign against the Scuds and the attempt to prevent any further launches will certainly continue. It is difficult to obstruct them entirely, but it is
656
clear that the pressure they face, and the risk of detection, have contributed to some of the inacuracy that they have shown and the speed with which they have been deployed and fired.
When the history of this campaign is written, I think that it will be possible to assess just how effective the campaign has been. If my hon. Friend wants me to give a judgment now, I can say that it looks as though the actual achievements are rather greater than some of the earlier estimates.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Given the rapid, encouraging and gratifying advance that has been made, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that coalition forces are within a few hours at least of the southern Kuwaiti oil wells which are now ablaze? Will the speed of the advance be matched by action to try to extinguish those oil wells?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to caution the House and to remind it of my statement. The ground campaign has begun well, but we are moving into the critical phase and are encountering forces of greater capability—I do not want to exaggerate or diminish their capability—than those in the front line. In addition, we should recognise that there are a substantial number of them. On the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental considerations, it will be an early concern to extinguish that appalling and nasty blaze.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the risks that our skilled and courageous Air Force has had to take to minimise civilian casualties have been more than justified? Military commanders are carrying out exercises which are essential to prevent Saddam Hussein's military from launching a counteroffensive that could do irreparable damage to the allied forces. There are no military constraints on them doing what is absolutely essential.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right. The Iraqis still possess dangerous weapons and capabilities. Every day that the ground campaign is shortened will owe a tremendous amount to the skill and courage of our air forces, whose critically important work has not finished.
Mr. Bruce George: The speed and rate at which Iraqi forces were captured or surrendered must have exceeded expectations. Is not that a mixed blessing, as it might cause considerable logistical problems for the armed forces? The Secretary of State sent additional forces to Kuwait to cope with the many prisoners expected, but does he foresee sending further troops to cope with what one hopes will be many additional surrendered or captured forces?
Mr. King: No, we have no such plans. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the campaign—which owes much, as he will understand, to the meticulous planning that went into it, including provision for medical and hospital facilities for prisoners of war. Extensive arrangements have been made, which I hope will prove adequate for the task.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have another statement this afternoon. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that more than 30 countries from as far afield as Argentina, Niger and New Zealand have sent armed services contributions to the United Nations effort in the Gulf? Do not those contributions from such a wide range of countries show that this is indeed a United Nations effort?
Mr. King: That is absolutely correct. The substantial United Nations contribution dwarfs the only other comparable occasion—the Korean war.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Minister agree with the Soviet spokesman who said that an opportunity for achieving the aims of the United Nations resolution without further bloodshed had been tragically missed? Does he agree that, rather than acting as Little Sir Echo to whatever George Bush said, the Prime Minister should have thrown the weight of this country behind the Soviet peace plan and against the war faction within the American Administration?
Mr. King: The hon. Member said that an opportunity to achieve the aims of the United Nations resolution without further bloodshed had been tragically missed. At that time, Saddam Hussein had given instructions for the total destruction of Kuwait.
Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the land war so far, which has been due to the great courage of all the troops involved and the remarkable co-operation among soldiers of many different countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of the past few days have confirmed that there will be peace in the Gulf only when Saddam Hussein is deposed and his military machine destroyed?
Mr. King: Our first objective is the liberation of Kuwait. Our next objective is the achievement of all the United Nations resolutions. We have made that position absolutely clear. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the determination of all the coalition forces and to the leadership of General Schwarzkopf, the commander-in-chief, in achieving the excellent progress that they have made so far.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), which I believe remains unanswered, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly where the limits to the war aims lie, now that the land battle has been engaged?
Mr. King: With respect, I have answered that question about four times. There is no change in our position. We have made absolutely clear our commitment to the achievement of the United Nations resolutions.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the professionalism and bravery of allied troops, it must occur even to Saddam Hussein fairly soon that his days are numbered? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Saddam Hussein will seek to vent his anger on Israel, which has been no part of the dispute or war? Does he agree that the coalition must keep an open mind about providing more support for the defence of Israel, should that anger be turned on Israel in further murderous attacks?
Mr. King: I do not think that Saddam Hussein is "about" to vent his anger on Israel—he has made a number of attempts. One of the most appalling features of the situation has been that Israel, a non-combatant country which is not in conflict with Iraq in this matter, has been deliberately attacked by Iraq. We have done all that we can to prevent that. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that our determination to do all that we can will continue.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My abiding concern is with our front-line soldiers. Several score of my young constituents are serving with the Scottish regiments, and presumably many of those young men are in Kuwait. Despite that concern, I seek an assurance about Iraqi prisoners of war. Given the squalid human rights records of Syria and Saudi Arabia, how confident are the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that those poor bloody Iraqi infantrymen will be treated by the Syrians and Saudi Arabians in conformity with the Geneva convention—in other words, humanely and compassionately?
Mr. King: All the coalition countries have made clear their commitment to the scrupulous observance of the Geneva conventions and have made extensive arrangements to that end. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross——
Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the truth.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman says that I know that that is not the truth. The International Committee of the Red Cross has already made visits—it did so before the conflict started—to satisfy itself about the adequacy of the arrangements for prisoners of war. I certainly give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that the British Government have made that absolutely clear. We are anxious that all the coalition countries treat prisoners of war in that way.

Prisons (Woolf Report)
4.23 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the report of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry into the disturbances last April at Strangeways prison, Manchester, and other prisons. I am grateful to Lord Justice Woolf and to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, who joined in part II of the inquiry, for such a wide-ranging and constructive report, which includes 12 recommendations and 204 proposals.
The events of last April were unprecedented and unacceptable. Control of one of our largest prisons was lost for 25 days. Significant violence erupted at eight more prisons and at others control was maintained with great difficulty. The country was shocked by the defiance and destruction that we saw nightly on our television screens. I utterly condemn the behaviour of the small minority of the prisoners who joined in that orgy of destruction. As the House will be well aware, 183 persons have been convicted or are now awaiting trial on charges including murder and riot.
The report concludes that some decisions might have been taken differently. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Woolf stresses, and I wish to stress to the House today, that the disturbances were handled with great skill and courage by the prison staff at all levels.
Although Lord Justice Woolf makes some critical comments about the prison service, he also emphasises that the public have every reason to be extremely grateful to the members of the service who over a number of years have shown immense dedication, courage and professionalism. I endorse that judgment.
Immediately after the end of the riot, my predecessor put in hand urgent action. Incidents of this sort must be dealt with firmly and quickly. We have therefore set up a new incident control centre, overhauled contingency plans and clarified the lines of responsibility for dealing with riots.
More staff have been trained in the new and improved techniques of control and restraint that are necessary to handle dangerous incidents. The stock of riot control equipment has been increased. We have completed a review of the physical security of prisons, in particular access to roofs, and substantial improvements have been made.
The country will not tolerate the kind of disgraceful behaviour witnessed last April. We must make clear our utter condemnation of it by introducing a new deterrent. We shall, therefore, as we have already made clear, bring before the House proposals to create a new offence of prison mutiny, which will carry a maximum penalty of 10 extra years in prison. However, Lord Justice Woolf emphasises that we need to balance security and control with justice and humanity and I wholly endorse that view. Guilty criminals have to be punished by the loss of their liberty. Dangerous criminals have to be detained to protect the public.
It is not the purpose of the prison system to provide holiday camps for prisoners, but it is not the purpose of the prison system to provide physical conditions that degrade and humiliate prisoners and strip away their self-respect.
660
Prisons should be places that are austere but decent, and provide a busy and positive regime which prepares criminals for their ultimate release.
Many reforms are already in hand, started by a major programme inaugurated by one of my predecessors, Lord Whitelaw, in 1979. Since 1979, eight new prisons have been built and 13 more are under construction. Over the next two years, 12 new prisons will be opened. The prison population is now some 4,000 below what it was in September 1989. That means that we are in sight of the end of overcrowding. We can now take those reforms a major step further.
I consider that the practice of prisoners having to slop out is degrading and intolerable. It makes it very difficult to run a sensible prison regime and should be brought to an end. The present target is to do that in 1997. Lord Justice Woolf recommends that it should be not later than February 1996. In my view, we can and should do even better. I am now launching a programme to provide all prisoners with access to sanitation day and night by the end of 1994. That programme will cost an extra £36 million over the next four years. I will find half that from existing provision, but I am glad to say that an additional £18 million will be provided.
I also consider that it is wrong for juveniles awaiting trial to be held in prison and I intend to bring that practice to an end.
The report also makes many helpful recommendations about the regimes that we provide for prisoners. We must not forget that while imprisonment punishes the criminal and protects the public, its other purposes are rehabilitation and preparation for a return to the community. Since 1988, there has been a substantial increase in the hours spent on education, from, 5·5 million to 7·7 million. I want to see more prisoners taking up educational courses and training in skills, so that they will have a better chance of leading a life free from crime when they are released. Prisoners must be kept constructively occupied in workshops and other activity, and Lord Justice Woolf makes important recommendations in that area.
Lord Justice Woolf also emphasises how important it is for prisoners to retain their family ties. In my view, it is vital that prisoners maintain that link so that they can assume their family responsibilities on release. It is also the thrust of Government thinking that everything should be done to avoid the break-up of families which can contribute to delinquency and crime. I therefore propose to increase the level of visits to prisoners and extend the arrangements for financially assisted visits for visitors who are on low incomes. I have also decided to increase the opportunities for home leave in open prisons from three times a year to six times a year. I am placing details in the Library of the House.
Lord Justice Woolf points out the value of cardphones. which allow prisoners to retain contact with their families. I am therefore announcing, subject to some limitation for security reasons, that cardphones paid for by prisoners will be provided in all prisons that do not already have them.
Despite the availability of cardphones, letters remain very important to most prisoners. Like Lord Justice Woolf, I believe that the present levels of censorship are unnecessary. I have therefore decided to abolish routine censorship in all establishments except dispersal prisons. Governors will retain, for security reasons, the right to censor.

661
Those measures represent a major series of reforms, but cover only some of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. He makes many other proposals, including the place of the prison service in the wider criminal justice system and the higher management of the service, and I shall give them careful consideration. I propose to issue a White Paper later in the year to take account of those recommendations and chart the direction of the prison service for the rest of the century and beyond.
The changes will transform the living and working conditions of both prisoners and prison officers, but they depend crucially on the managers and staff of the prison service. I have already visited many prisons and have been very impressed with the dedication and concern of the governors and staff whom I have met.
Industrial relations in the prison service have, from time to time, been troubled. The future well-being of the service requires a new spirit of co-operation on all the issues that we face. With that in mind, I saw the trade unions representing all prison service staff earlier today. I very much hope that they will respond in the spirit of Lord Justice Woolis proposals.
The events of last April marked a watershed in the history of prison service. We cannot, and will not, tolerate the savagery and vandalism in our prisons that we saw then. We have already taken urgent action to remedy deficiencies. Lord Justice Woolf's report recognises that, while prisoners must be held in secure conditions, a decent regime enhances security by making incidents such as those of last April less likely. The Woolf report recommends constructive changes to our prison system which build on the substantial modernisation of the last decade. I have announced today further reforms and more will follow. I commend the report to the House.
Mr. Roy Hattersley; I begin by offering my whole-hearted congratulations to Lord Justice Woolf on producing a report which can lead to the radical reform of the prison system that this country has needed for so long. The theme that runs through his report is that, although our prison service is generally excellent, it is, all too often, a disgrace to a civilised community.
Like the Home Secretary, I condemn those responsible for the Strangeways riot. Like him, I note that Lord Justice Woolf believes that the prison service dealt with that disturbance, in general, with skill and courage. The important task now is to build on what we have learnt from that unhappy experience. I assure the Home Secretary that we welcome and will support his decision to end by 1994 the degrading process of slopping out. We also support his proposals for improved family visits, better access to families by telephone and letter, and juvenile custody.
Does the Home Secretary agree that the proposal that each prisoner should receive a contract setting out expectations and responsibilities could lead to a penal system that reduces the likelihood of further offences, rather than, as now, making them more likely? That requires the implementation of the whole report, I wish to press the Home Secretary on that, because he has not commented on Lord Justice Woolf's more fundamental recommendations.
662
I remind the Home Secretary that the majority of the report's proposals were urged on the Government a year ago by the Labour party and submitted in the Labour party's evidence to Lord Justice Woolis inquiry. In addition to preserving family ties, we recommended a national system of accredited standards; so does Lord Justice Woolf. We recommended a revision of disciplinary procedures, including final aappeal to an independent authority; so does Lord Justice Woolf. We recommended access to education, recreation and employment as a right; and so does Lord Justice Woolf. Those proposals were dismissed and derided by the Home Secretary's predecessor. We now look forward to and expect their speedy implementation.
Is it really necessary to wait so long for real progress to be made on those fundamental parts of Lord Justice Woolf's report? We appreciate that some of the structural reforms may take time, but could not the Criminal Justice Bill, which is passing through Parliament and has yet to go to the other place, have its long title amended to allow speedy implementation of at least some of the Woolf proposals? Were the Home Secretary to table new clauses, we would ensure their speedy passage.
How does the Home Secretary propose to implement the proposal that no establishment should hold more than a certified normal level of prisoners? He will recall that recent industrial disputes in the prisons happened because prison officers insisted that exactly that rule should be applied. I therefore ask him directly: is it possible to meet the Woolf requirements on accommodation without reducing prison populations to a far greater extent than the Government now intend? The Home Secretary will recall that we still have a prison population that is, pro rata, far greater than that of any other western democracy and, in the opinion of almost every commentator, far greater than it needs to be or should be.
Finally, I refer the Home Secretary to a paragraph in the report which described the prison service as succeeding
"against heavy odds … to contain an almost impossible situation by showing immense dedication, courage and professionalism."
The impossible situation to which the report refers is not the Strangeways riot in particular but prisons in general. Since the prison service has acted in general with dedication, professionalism and courage, does the Home Secretary agree that the successful implementation of the Woolf report proposals depends on maintaining the good will of those who are employed in the service? Would not it be absurd to jeopardise that good will by implementing proposals for privatised prisons which are based on nothing more than ideological prejudice?
The Woolf report offers the chance for major reforms of our squalid and socially damaging prisons—reforms that will change them out of all recognition. I urge the Home Secretary to take that chance and to take it at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report on the work that Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim have done and for his support for my announcements today.
The right hon. Gentleman raised several matters, the first of which was contracts. It is an interesting idea, but it bears on another recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf—sentence planning. The right hon. Gentleman will know that prisoners in young offenders' institutions and life

663
sentence prisoners now have their sentences planned for them. That may be the most positive way in which to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman urged me to introduce other changes very quickly. The points that have been made to me by the staff side and by the prison officers whom I met this morning were for a measured programme of reform. They made that point repeatedly. Much is happening in the prison service. Already major reforms are in hand, and I have added some more today. Those people stressed to me the importance of absorbing them and making sure that they work effectively.
As for the certificated level of prisoners in an establishment, we are moving to a situation—we are not yet there—in which overcrowding will come to an end. Over the next two or three years, the increase in places will be 6,000 or 7,000, and that will increase the availability of places to more than 50,000. The prison population this day is just below 45,000. So we are moving towards circumstances in which the supply of prison places will exceed the likely prison population. Of course, that does not mean that overcrowding will be eliminated in all prisons; some local prisons will still have problems. We shall have to work on that, which is why we want the rolling programme in order to end overcrowding.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about good will. I accept entirely that the good will of the staff is needed, and I pay tribute to those I met when visiting prisons. They are dedicated people who are conscious that their job is not only to run secure establishments but to help the prisoners in those establishments. I do not believe that that good will will be sacrificed as a result of the proposal to privatise some types of prisons, because privatised prisons operate satisfactorily in other parts of the world. I do not believe that privatisation will bear on that aspect.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated a point that has been made before—that we have a tendency to lock up more people in this country and that, by some measurements, we have a higher prison population. I asked the statisticians in the Home Office to prepare some papers on those figures.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: To change them.
Mr. Baker: It is of no particular advantage to me to have them changed. As always, I am searching for truth. The chief statistician at the Home Office has done some work on the measurement of the prison population, not only in relation to the 100,000 figure of population, but in relation to the level of crime. On that basis, we do not emerge as the country that has a tendency to lock up rnore people.
The Woolf report points the way to a better and more positive system of prison regimes in which we can look forward to the possibility of more prisoners leaving prison in a better condition—or at least in no worse a condition—than when they entered.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no possible justification for the savage violence and wanton destruction witnessed at Strangeways last April? Will he confirm that the ring-leaders will be prosecuted with the full vigour of the law? Does he also agree that, far from the Government's doing nothing, their prison building programme and the measures already contained in the Criminal Justice Bill
664
provide the platform from which Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations for the future of our prison regime can be realised?
Mr. Baker: I echo exactly what my hon. Friend said. The actions that we saw at Strangeways—the defiance, the vandalism and the orgy of destruction—are quite unacceptable. As I said, about 183 prisoners are awaiting charges or have been convicted. Some of them face charges in connection with the most serious offences, including murder and riot. I cannot comment further, because those cases are sub judice, but the action put in hand by my predecessor will ensure that such incidents will not happen again.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Let me express my appreciation of the enormously authoritative and extensive work of Lord Justice Woolf and gratitude that the Home Secretary has seen fit to move rapidly on the specific matters on which he could move rapidly. Why has not the Home Secretary commented on what may be thought to be the central thesis of Lord Justice Woolfs report, which is that there has been a damaging failure of communication among all the agencies in the criminal justice system and that that underlay the appalling episodes that gave rise to the inquiry? I accept that we need time to consider the structural recommendations made by Lord Justice Woolf, but does the Home Secretary recognise that those recommendations are undoubtedly the most important for the future of prison reform?
Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the Woolf report. There is already considerable co-ordination between the various component parts of the criminal justice system, and conferences are constantly under way to bring the various parts together. Of course, in preparing the White Paper, I shall look carefully at that point, which is the first in the recommendations.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide and warm welcome for the recommendations that he has decided to accept, and for his announcement today? Does he agree that it will be necessary to consider with immense care the details of a report which contains 600 pages? There will be a great welcome for his proposal to publish a White Paper, but does he agree that it should consider both the structure of the prison service and the purpose of imprisonment?
Mr. Baker: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The wide-ranging nature of the report, which contains more than 200 proposals and 12 recommendations, goes to the very heart of the structure of the prison service and the penal system. I agree entirely that the White Paper must address the structure of the prison service and its management as well as the regimes within prisons. It provides a major opportunity to set out and chart the course of developments for the rest of this century and, indeed, beyond.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The appreciation of the House is clearly due to Lord Justice Woolf and to Stephen Tumim. What assessment has the Home Secretary himself made, in terms of what happened at Strangeways, of the effect of the wholly inappropriate accommodation there on people who are mentally ill and

665
certifiably so? How many such people were there last April and how many are now accommodated in other prisons due to the lack of other more suitable accommodation? Will the right hon. Gentleman also now urgently reconsider the Government's refusal to recompense the Greater Manchester police force for the full costs of its involvement in the Strangeways disaster?
Mr. Baker: On overcrowding, the report makes it clear that Strangeways prison was seriously overcrowded at the time of the riot; I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to part I, which deals with that. He asked where prisoners who were not held in prisons were being held.
Mr. Morris: The mentally ill?
Mr. Baker: On the mentally ill, I shall have to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the question of overcrowding generally, as a result of the riot, Strangeways will not be able to receive any more prisoners for some time, but K wing has been reopened and was re-occupied in December. That now holds about 190 prisoners and, in mid-May, it is planned to reopen G, H and I wings with integral sanitation. That will bring the certificated normal accommodation up to about 325 places. That will considerably relieve overcrowding, although I am disappointed to tell the House that some prisoners are still being held in police cells. I look upon that as unsatisfactory, even though the figure is well down.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about resources for the Greater Manchester police authority. Payments have been made in respect of some of the special costs involved, including the use of helicopters and the casualty information service that the authority maintained, but the main cost that the authority bore was that of keeping people in police cells. Payments have been made to Manchester police authority in respect of that.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone concerned with the penal system will think this an excellent report and will welcome his commitment not to leave it on the shelf, and especially his realisation that all who work for containment and rehabilitation in the prison service will be able to achieve their tasks only if their work is undertaken in a humane and civilised environment?
Mr. Baker: I accept entirely what my hon. and learned Friend says. The punishment for a prisoner is the deprivation of his liberty. One does not have to add to that circumstances that may lead to degradation or humiliation, which may have the reverse effect of what is required. The philosophy behind the report and behind the thrust of the Government's reforms of prison management is to provide a positive regime for prisoners and ensure that they are involved in education and training. That must be done against the background described by my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Robert Litherland: The Home Secretary referred to "dedicated" prison staff. Does he agree that it would be outrageous to discipline any member of the Strangeways prison staff who was thrown into a situation last April that was not of his own making, when the real culprits of the piece were the Home Office in
666
general and Mr. Emes especially, who was then the director-general of the prison service, and who overruled the governor's decision when the prison could have been taken the second day, thus saving a lot of misery and a lot of money?
Mr. Baker: When he reads the report, the hon. Gentleman will see that the incident is described in considerable detail, including the events leading up to the riot on 1 April, and the events of I and 2 April and the subsequent days. Although it is clear that the governor thought that there should be an intervention when the deputy director-general thought that there should not, Lord Justice Woolf considers that the plan to intervene should have been allowed to proceed. However, his report states specifically that there would have been a serious risk of injury, if not of death, to the members of staff involved, and he explains the reasons why the deputy director-general came to the view that he did.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point about disciplinary action, I must advise him that there is no recommendation in the report for disciplinary action against individuals. There may have been errors in what was said or not said or in what was not done, but there is no case for taking disciplinary action.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes his statement that slopping out is to end by the end of 1994, which is two years earlier than was recommended by Lord Justice Woolf, and carries into effect the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee? I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased with that. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to improve the command centre in London, and what additional training will be given in riot and restraint procedures?
Mr. Baker: The immediate reaction to the report was to improve procedures in the prison service to ensure that, if such an incident or anything similar were to happen again, the management procedures would work more effectively. The incident room in London has been improved and enhanced. The line of command and responsibility has been clearly laid down. In any similar incidents in the future, the governor will clearly be in charge, and his decision could be overridden only by resort to Ministers.
On my hon. Friend's question about control and restraint procedures, such procedures have been developed for about three years now by the prison servive and have been extended. As a result of recent changes, more riot control equipment has been made available. I want more prison officers trained in such techniques.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Is the Home Secretary aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and I visited Strangeways prison in January during the Christmas recess? We pay tribute to the staff for coping with all the rebuilding work while trying to run a prison. The right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the valour of the prison staff during the riot meets with great approval from the general public. I hope that in due course the Home Secretary will be able to mark their courage in some way, as we do when members of the police and fire services carry out acts of courage.
Will the Home Secretary apply himself to the issue of media coverage and the occasional sensationalism of the

667
television and newspapers? Some of us feel that, as a result of such coverage, some of the prisoners were wallowing in the media spotlight. Will the Home Secretary take a fresh look at that in due course?
Mr. Baker: I do not want to be tempted down the road of censorship, because it would be exceptionally difficult to control the media in such a situation—and, where an event is so visual and obvious, it would not be appropriate. On reflection, I believe that the very fact that it was such a dramatic riot and that it was seen in other prisons encouraged some of the disturbances a week later.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about the staff whom he met at Christmas. They will read his comments in Hansard when it is published, but I pay tribute to them, too. Prison officers are very proud of their work and the more recognition that is paid to them for it, the better—and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done today.
Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in his forthcoming White Paper the fact that drug misuse in prisons can make the control of prisons difficult? He might even consider introducing the regular screening of prisoners, as happens in other countries.
Mr. Baker: The Woolf report deals with the management of drug abusers in prison, covering those who are drug-dependent when they enter prison and the way in which they should be handled, and the accusations that have been made about the illicit use of drugs in prisons. I agree with my hon. Friend that the recommendations of the Woolf report on that matter are important. However, it is a question not only of drug abuse, but of alcohol abuse. The therapy that is now available for dealing with both should be made available to prisoners who are dependent on those narcotics.
Mr. Terry Fields: In his quest for truth and honesty, does the Secretary of State agree that the society that has been created by this Government—of poverty, unemployment, despair and homelessness—contributed greatly to the crime figures in this country?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: That did not cause prisoners to climb on the roof.
Mr. Fields: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to intervene—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the mutterings from Conservative Members.
Does the Home Secretary further agree that overcrowding dehumanises prisoners and demoralises the prison officers? The Home Secretary used to be the Secretary of State for the Environment, so on another point, has he cast his mind to what he will do with the 14 million poll tax non-payers when they are fined? Will he find places for them?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is wide of the statement.
Mr. Baker: In replying to a rambling diatribe, I advise the hon. Gentleman simply that, since 1979, this Government have devoted more resources to the prison service than any Government in the history of the British penal system.
Mr. Tony Favell: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) just said, may I advise my right hon. Friend that my experience as a lawyer is that many people end up in prison because they are neither equipped for nor wish to work? In the present circumstances, my right hon. Friend's proposal that prisoners should train and work while in gaol is a first-class proposal. Does he agree that the devil soon finds a use for idle hands?
Mr. Baker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Prison regimes should be positive. I have already said that the number of educational hours and the hours spent in training and in workshops should be increased so that prisoners can acquire skills that they can use so that they do not resume their life of crime, but can find a positive job when they leave prison.
Mr. David Alton: While welcoming Lord Justice Woolf's report, what evidence does the Home Secretary have about health and hygiene and especially about the spread of HIV and hepatitis in prisons? Does he agree that we need an intensive health care programme in prisons? Where immunisation is available, as it is for hepatitis, does he agree that it should be extended immediately to all prisoners who wish it?
Mr. Baker: There is a section in chapter 12 of the Woolf report on the management of HIV, and of AIDS where HIV has developed into AIDS. Certain recommendations are made in paragraph 12·372, to which I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention.
Mr. David Sumberg: May I join the tributes to the prison staff who faced a dangerous situation with great courage? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that, despite all the problems, not a single prisoner escaped from Strangeways during the riots, which was a matter of some concern to my constituents who live nearby? While on the subject of public safety, will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that prisoners are removed from police cells as quickly as possible? There is public concern in the north-west on that issue.
Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. No one wants to see in prison cells people who are on remand. It is a totally unsatisfactory practice, and we are doing all we can to reduce its incidence. The highest number of remand prisoners was just over 1,100. This morning there were about 650, mainly in the north-west. Some of the pressure will be relieved when the new Strangeways wings come into operation in mid-May.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As my right hon. Friend knows, my constituency of Littleborough and Saddleworth, on the outskirts of Oldham and Rochdale, is within the Manchester police area. Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents never, never want to see a spectacle such as we witnessed for 25 days at Strangeways prison? The mobility of local businesses and residents was disrupted, and parts of Manchester were turned into no-go areas.
My constituents will be pleased with the Woolf report's recommendations concerning the relaxation of conditions in prisons, and most of them will be delighted at the creation of the new criminal offence of prison mutiny, for which the maximum sentence will be 10 years'

669
imprisonment. I understand that every prisoner, on being taken into gaol, will be informed of that offence and that sentence.
Mr. Baker: I am sure that the new offence will be well known throughout the prison system, and we shall make sure that prisoners know about it. I understand entirely the strong revulsion expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents at the events that we witnessed last April. As I said in my statement, such events are unacceptable, and we must ensure that they will not occur again.
Mr. William McKelvey: I, too, congratulate the Home Secretary on the speed with which he has adopted some of the recommendations of the Woolf report—especially those concerning changes with regard to slopping out. Will the White Paper refer to after-care for prisoners? Is any consideration being given to the granting of some money to the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders? The Scottish association tells me that, at present, it has a very large overdraft. After-care for prisoners is extremely important if we are to stop recidivism.
Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about my statement. I shall certainly consider the point that he has made.
Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his report and on his tribute to prison officers? The officers at Brixton prison, which is in my constituency, certainly merit that tribute. Does my right hon. Friend know that a number of juveniles who are in Brixton on remand—I am thinking especially of those in L wing, perhaps remanded for medical reports—find themselves in the most forbidding circumstances? As my right hon. Friend is aware, such circumstances have resulted in suicides. When will he be able to stop this practice?
Mr. Baker: As I said, I regard the practice as unacceptable. I have issued a Green Paper—a consultation document—on the steps that are needed, and I hope to receive representations shortly. Extra resources will have to be provided for secure lock-up accommodation—accommodation not in prisons—for juveniles. I agree entirely that people under 17 awaiting trial on very serious charges—youngsters who are not released on bail—should not be held in prison.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Why does it take a riot to produce reforms of this sort with this degree of urgency? The Home Office must have been out of touch for a considerable time not to have produced the programme that the Home Secretary has now announced. That programme is clearly a consequence of the serious riot.
Does the Home Secretary agree that pettifogging bureaucratic limitations are still being imposed on prisoners? For example, a family who had travelled a long way were turned away because they did not have the right visiting card. The attitude adopted was that the family were at fault. That cannot be helpful. Then there is the case of the prisoner who was forbidden to write a letter in
670
braille to a blind relative. If the new regime that the Home Secretary has announced is to mean anything, such frustrations must be eradicated.
Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will pass me details of the second case to which he referred, I shall have it looked into. It is not the function of prison governors to introduce pettifogging restrictions. I have emphasised today the importance of prison visits.
The hon. Gentleman says that we are merely responding to the riots. In fact, for a number of years the Government have had in hand measures of fundamental prison reform. When we came to office, the date for the ending of slopping out that we inherited was well into the 21st century. We have provided substantial resources for the prison service, including funds for the largest building programme in prison history. I have been able to anounce today the provision of £36 million of extra money—£18 million of new money—and the ending of slopping out in September 1994.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend accept again the congratulations of Conservative Members on these measures, which are extremely welcome? A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the problem of overcrowding. As a Birmingham Member, I am particularly anxious about Winson Green. Will my right hon. Friend undertake, in the White Paper, to address this problem once again?
Mr. Baker: I certainly give that undertaking. It is a very important matter. One point that the report brings out concerns the problem of overcrowding in Strangeways in the early part of last year. It was a very overcrowded prison. It is now very unusual, as I go round prisons, to find a cell with three prisoners. Some still have three prisoners, but not many. There are cells with two prisoners. Some prisoners prefer to share, and ask for double accommodation. However, we should provide the possibility for all those wishing to have single cells to have them. That is our objective.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Home Secretary inject a little honesty into his statement? Everybody outside this place knows that he is making these concessions because of the Strangeways riot last year and one or two other goal riots. The truth is that, when the Tory party was elected, there were three prisoners in every cell. Now, there are three on nearly every roof each summer. The Tory party was elected to set the people free, but the prisoners got out.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not often turned his capacious mind to the question of penal reform. If he had—[HON. MEMBERS:"He has been to prison.") Really? That is most interesting.
Mr. Skinner: I was innocent.
Mr. Baker: Innocent? Well, I am sure. that the process did the hon. Gentleman a great deal of good. If the hon. Gentleman follows these matters, he will know that we have introduced a series of prison reforms over the past four or five years. If he would like copies of all the documents that have been produced by myself and my predecessors, I shall be happy to send them to him. Then he will be able to recognise the true reforming nature of this Government when it comes to prisons.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that hardly anyone who has visited a prison does not welcome his positive reaction to this report? Even with the placement of long-term prisoners outside local prisons, and even with the improvements being made by the Criminal Justice Bill, there must still be some qualms about the ability to meet the requirements regarding certificated normal accommodation in a prison such as Lewes, where there will still be many remand prisoners because the courts send them there. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will liaise most carefully with the Law Officers, with a view to seeing that the law, as administered by the courts, matches his reforming zeal?
Mr. Baker: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend said. Much depends on the sentencing policy followed by judges and magistrates. The Criminal Justice Bill, which we shall be considering in a few minutes, makes major changes in sentencing policy. The main purpose is to ensure that people who are in prison for serious offences are likely to stay there longer. By the same token, those convicted of less serious charges should not go to gaol at all. That is the whole purpose of the bill, and it will have particular relevance for the populations in local gaols like Lewes.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whenever there is a problem in prisons, one of the first things to disappear is the opportunity to work or to take advantage of education? When I last visited Durham prison, where one still sees dehumanising conditions, virtually no education or work was being undertaken by the male prisoners. However, I was impressed by the new work regime in which female prisoners were involved. They wanted a commitment that that could be extended to other prisons. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that, in moving to the elimination, by 1994, of the appalling practice of slopping out, the Government will not jeopardise the other aim of enabling prisoners to have a fruitful work regime and other educational opportunities?
Mr. Baker: The practice of slopping out is one of the biggest disruptions to the prison day. It takes half an hour per time, and if prisoners slop out four times a day, it completely destroys the planning of a sensible prison day to include visits to workshops and education facilities. Ending slopping out is important for a whole series of reasons. As to education, I remind the hon. Lady that we have extended considerably the amount of time available for education from some 5 million to nearly 8 million hours a year.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Prisoners get only three hours a day.
Mr. Baker: It depends on which prison one goes to. A fortnight ago, I was in a prison that had completely new facilities in the education wing. We are investing heavily in education—[Interruption.] The Opposition are in a dilemma. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If they are not, I shall make sure that they find themselves in one. We are engaged on a major programme of reform, and we are providing the resources for it.
Mr. Richard Alexander: I welcome my right hon. Friend's positive response. Did the report say anything about more sentence planning for adults as well as young offenders? Is there not greater scope, in the
672
judicial system, for judges who send people to prison to ensure that the regime to which they send them is appropriate to their needs?
Mr. Baker: I am very sympathetic to the recommendations of Woolf on sentence planning. This already operates in institutions that deal with young offenders up to the age of 21 or 22 and for those who have life sentences. Sentence planning is a sensible idea, because a prisoner can be given a map of what is available to him and what can be offered to him while he is in prison. That is an attractive idea.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The humane measures that my right hon. Friend has announced will be greatly welcomed the other side of the balance to the toughening up of the parole system that was announced earlier. They are also essentially an extension of the prison building programme that he and his predecessors have undertaken. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when reforms are introduced, prisoners are so organised that they will respect them, rather than, as happened in Strangeways, destroying some of the better measures that had been introduced there before the riots? In the category C prison in my constituency, Send, these reforms will be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to bring forward the White Paper quickly so that we can have the benefits of what is proposed this afternoon as soon as possible?
Mr. Baker: I shall try to do it before the end of the year. I am glad that my hon. Friend presses me in that way. I visited the prison in his constituency, Send, which has a positive regime, set in place by the prison officers and the governors. It is a small but effective prison. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of a positive regime. That lies at the heart of any reform of the penal system.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May we be quite clear on one point? The Opposition are congratulating everyone associated with the Woolf report, not the Home Secretary. Is he aware that these proposals are the most comprehensive for penal reform this century? It is not clear from his remarks that he is aware of that. Does he not understand that the report is a clear and damning condemnation of the direction of Government policy over the past 12 years? It is no good throwing money at the prison building programme and introduced privatisation in prisons, when the Government's philosophy on penal policy is so wrong. If the Home Secretary does not realise that, he has not been honest with the House.
Can we push the right hon. Gentleman on this? Is the Home Secretary clearly accepting the philosophy of Woolf? We demand to know that. The more we push the Home Secretary, the more we find no categorical commitment to that philosophy. There have been opportunities—as there were when we debated the Criminal Justice Bill last Wednesday—for the Government to accept measures to reduce the number of people in prison. The Government rejected moves to take fine defaulters and the mentally ill out of prison. Is it not about time that the Home Secretary realised that this is his opportunity to make or break his reputation as a Home Secretary?
Mr. Baker: What the hon. Gentleman said about fine defaulting is wrong. Woolf makes positive recommendations on that. One consequence of the Criminal Justice Bill—the unit fine system, which is the method of collection

673
through attachment either of earnings or income support—is that it will ensure that in future there will be much less fine defaulting. The hon. Gentleman should screw up a little generosity, as some of his hon. Friends have, and recognise what we have done. They are kind-hearted people, and I hope that he can be as kind-hearted.

Ravenscraig Steelworks
5.16 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"British Steel's decision, announced last Friday 22 February, to reduce Ravenscraig steelworks to single furnace working."
The matter is specific, in that it relates to the closure of the blast furnace and steel-making capacity, on which undertakings were given by British Steel and announced by the responsible Ministers in both Houses of Parliament at the time of privatisation of British Steel in 1988. Those undertakings, relating to the continued operation of the works and to the offer for sale of the steel-making facilities in the works should British Steel no longer require them, have not been fulfilled, and they must be.
The matter is important because the closure will mean the loss of 1 million tonnes of steel-making capacity, which British Steel cannot do without, given the continuing trade deficit which today's figures have shown extending further. It will reduce Ravenscraig to a level of working from which it will be difficult to recover, greatly increasing the likelihood of an early cessation of steel making in Scotland.
Locally, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), it will bring to almost 3,000 the total of steel job losses this year, with probably over 5,000 further job losses among suppliers, contractors and local businesses. It will be a shattering blow to employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland generally, for which the Government have made no preparations.
Finally, the matter is urgent because the decision has immediate operational implications at the plant for closing down a blast furnace, which will be irreversible.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"British Steel's decision, announced last Friday 22 February, to reduce Ravenscraig steelworks to single furnace working".
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said about this matter and the impact that it will have on his constituents. As he knows, I have to decide whether to give it precedence over the business of the House set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)
5.18 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the withdrawal of Government support for Carnon Consolidated."
The Government are ending their financial support to Cornwall's last tin mines, Wheal Jane and South Crofty, which will mean 415 redundancies and the end of tin mining in Cornwall. The decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—it is his personal decision—to cut the lifeline to the tin mines is appalling. It comes as a tragic blow to all those concerned about the mines, and in particular to those who will lose their jobs.
The Government had promised a further £4 million loan to the mines, but suddenly broke the commitment unexpectedly late last Friday. As they had invested £23 million in the mines so far, to pull out now just to save £4 million is senseless and, considering the social security benefits and redundancy payments that will flow from this, it is hard to see any logic in it.
Tin is at its lowest price ever, and the position can only improve. As a result of the Secretary of State's decision, the mines will not be given a chance. Wheal Jane will be flooded, which will make it unopenable, and South Crofty will go on a care and maintenance basis, which will leave none of the existing employees with an outlook for secure employment. Those job losses are especially tragic because they are unnecessary and come at a time when job prospects in Cornwall are extremely bad. It is a sad day for those who will be made redundant, and my sympathy goes to them and their families.
The Government have behaved disgracefully and irresponsibly. For more than a year, they have engaged in discussions with the management of the mines about how to keep the mines open. Suddenly and unexpectedly to withdraw support, late on a Friday afternoon when no representations could be made and without notice, can be described only as disgusting. The Government deserve to be held in contempt. They should have to come to the House to explain their action. I would have expected them to make a statement, but as they will not do so, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bring them to the Dispatch Box to justify their decision.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the withdrawal of Government support for Carnon Consolidated."
Again, I regret that I must give the hon. Member the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). I regret that the matter does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, so I cannot submit his application to the House. In the light of what he said, I hope that he will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

War Aims
5.21 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the clarification of war aims in the Gulf."
This is not a posturing effort. With the best will in the world, a statement in the House is insufficient. If the House is to do its job, it should have a three-hour debate on such a matter.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked specifically about war aims on the Secretary of State's statement, she was told that there was no change in the position, that the question had been answered four times and that she had better look at the United Nations resolutions. There is considerable confusion, even on the basis of the answers of the Secretary of State for Defence. I adduce for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, just four succinct points.
First, the United States military commanders are saying that it is essential to go into Iraq. Whatever the merits of such a policy, it is not consistent with the Egyptian or Arab coalition members' interpretation of United Nations resolutions. Secondly, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be brought to justice, the Secretary of State for Defence assented. On several occasions, it was stated that all individuals had to be held responsible for their actions. In short, the Commons should debate the issues raised by John and Ann Tusa in their article on war crimes in The Times. It opens up Pandora's box.
Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said that Kuwait had to be liberated, the reply was that Western troops might well be involved in keeping Kuwait liberated. That goes against the professed views of Iran and the whole background of peace and stability being restored to the area. The House would want to know how, especially in terms of the photochemical smog.
Finally, Perez de Cuellar described the Russian peace proposals as a unique opportunity. It looks to some of us as though the Russian peace proposals have been scuppered, as the Peruvian peace proposals were scuppered by the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war. The Secretary of State for Defence said that the Russians had been betrayed in good faith. This is a matter of timing that should be explained. The real nub of the matter is that some of us fear that our country is being sucked into a war near Greater Baghdad.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the war aims of the coalition in the Gulf."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision to the House without giving any reasons. I have listened to what he said, but I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House because it does not meet the criteria of the order.

War Aims
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS
    That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    FOOD ASSISTANCE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(2) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).
    That European Community Document No. 10880/90, relating to the extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria, and a credit facility to the Soviet Union, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Chapman.]

    TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(2) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).
    That European Community Document No. 4120/91, relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  Not amended, (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Criminal Justice Bill
    Clause 26

      THE PAROLE BOARD
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 19, line 30 at end insert—
      '(6A) In subsection (6) above the reference to protecting the public from serious harm from offenders shall be construed, in relation to offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences (within the meaning of Part I of this Act), 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 such offenders.'.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

    Clause 27

      DUTY TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRISONERS
      5.26 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 19, line 42 leave out 'person' and insert 'short-term or long-term prisoner'.
      This is a technical amendment to correct an error in the Bill. It would leave out "person" and insert "short-term or long-term prisoner". As the Bill is drafted, the clause would apply to all prisoners released on licence, which it cannot do. It can apply only to those serving determinate sentences—not to life sentence prisoners who have indeterminate sentences. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk of the three-quarters point for those people. The amendment corrects the anomaly by ensuring that clause 27(3) applies only to short-term and long-term prisoners.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 39

      ALTERATION BY ORDER OF RELEVANT PROPORTIONS OF SENTENCES
      Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 25, line 24 after 'provide', insert—

      '(a) that the references in section 27(5) above to four years shall be construed as references to such other period as may be specified in the order;

      (b)'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 20.
      Mrs. Rumbold: These amendments give effect to an undertaking which we gave in Committee when we discussed clause 27. We were concerned about the threshold between the automatic and discretionary release scheme which is set at four years in the Bill by way of the definitions of long and short-term sentences. Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the four-year period. They were worried that some of the offences

      679
      committed by people serving shorter periods might require us to have another look at this clause. In Committee we undertook to consider an amendment which would enable the Home Secretary to take a power to vary the threshold.
      That threshold could be varied upwards or downwards in the light of the new scheme, but I do not anticipate that that will be necessary in the foreseeable future. My hon. Friends were right to ensure that we had the advantage of retaining flexibility when drawing up the new arrangments. The amendments will allow an adjustment in the important threshold if Parliament believes that that is necessary, and transitional arrangements could be made were Parliament of that mind.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Barry Sheerman: We are worried about Government amendment No. 19, although we have no quarrel with Government amendment No. 20.
      Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the amendments were a concession to the right of the Conservative party who succeeded in what can only be described as a mini-coup.
      Section 27 is the key section in implementing the proposals for parole. One of the most positive features is that parole will be automatic for those serving less than four years, and that the discretionary scheme will apply only to those serving four years and more.
      In Committee, we welcomed those parole proposals, although we tabled an amendment to ensure that those subject exactly to four years automatically gained parole. Our amendments were in line with what the Carlisle committee decided after much thought.
      The Carlisle committee report is of historic importance, and it was considered immediately prior to our discussions on the Bill. We believe that it is crazy, having established a powerful committee to look at a particular problem, which considered that problem in great detail and with much expertise, for the Government then to muck around with the detail of that committee's recommendations.
      The thrust of the Carlisle report will be ruined if we start to tinker with the four-year rule. I hope that the Government will not bend any further. We do not like amendment No. 19, and we should like them to have second thoughts about it. It would be far more sensible to keep to the Carlisle recommendations.
      As ever, we are the reasonable Opposition—we oppose the amendments not on ideological grounds, but because the Carlisle committee issued a good report. If one tries to mix and match that report with other things, its overall effect will be spoiled.
      The Carlisle committee stated:
      "Our conclusion is that a four year sentence provides the most sensible threshold beyond which a selective parole system should operate … We have come to the conclusion that the two or three year threshold that many have suggested would be too low … First, for a selective scheme to be credible there must be sufficient time for new considerations to emerge … The shorter the period between sentence and review the more likely it is that the parole decision will be based on no more material than that available to the judge. Second, if the selection process is to be thorough and fair yet not excessively cumbersome and costly the number of cases must be kept to manageable proportions."
      We do not want to delay proceedings on this, and we shall not seek to divide the House, but we are unhappy that the amendments could give the Government the ability to tinker with the recommendations of an extremely good report.
      Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for tabling the amendments. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) got his facts right when he described me as on the right of the party.
      I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about has interpretations of the Carlisle recommendations. I support the amendments because the Bill is introducing something that is entirely new—an automatic, conditional release system. We hope that the courts will use that system in line with a greater certainty on sentencing. We do not know whether four years is the right cut-off point; only experience will show what works in practice.
      It would be a mistake not to allow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to vary the four-year rule either upwards or downwards. I would have great doubts about him varying that rule upwards, although there may be a case for varying it downwards. It would be a mistake to enact the Bill without that power to vary. On the basis of that consideration, I welcome the amendments, which I hope the House will support.
      Mrs. Rumbold: It is clear that the Government regard the Carlisle recommendation of the four-year threshold as the right one. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), supported in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) cited some significant figures that made the Government think that it would be right to include an order-making power that could be brought into play in the light of experience in those circumstances where we felt it would be better to have a threshold that was either higher or lower than the four years. For that reason, the Government tabled the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 20, in page 25, line 26, leave out 'specified in the order' and insert
      'so specified.
      (1A) An order under this section may make such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in connection with any provision made by the order.'—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 43

      NOTICES OF TRANSFER IN CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 27, line 7, after 'alleged', insert '(i)'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109, 113 and 112.
      Mr. Patten: The amendments are a direct result of some good debates in Committee on this important issue. They are concerned with trying to help child witnesses in criminal proceedings in two ways—first, through the ability to bypass committal proceedings as set out in clause 43 and, secondly, by placing a bar on personal cross-examination of witnesses by the accused.
      I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) argued about this specific issue in Committee, although much of the argument was carried by those who are absent this afternoon, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—I believe in

      681
      being kind to Welsh nationalists—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is about her business in another part of the country, and that leading member of the Trappist tendency, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). That hon. Lady pressed the argument effectively, and I pay tribute to all that she did.
      I hope that I can commend the amendments with that brief explanation. They will do a great deal to help child witnesses in terms of bypassing committal and avoiding cross-examination by the accused.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hesitate to intervene in these proceedings as a Member representing Scotland, but I have a couple of questions about the amendments.
      Has the Minister had any discussions with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office on the implementation of such measures in Scotland? I speak as someone who has sought to change the law of Scotland on child witnesses. I did so last year during our deliberations on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. The amendments will determine the status of children and the protection given to them in what can be the most harrowing of circumstances. It is unfortunate that English legislation is well in advance of developments in Scottish legislation. On behalf of the Scottish children caught up in these dreadful circumstances, I must express my deep regret about that.
      Two cases pending in Scotland involve the most harrowing instances of sexual abuse against a number of young children, some of whom were only two or three years old when the horrible incidents took place. Nevertheless, children in Scotland caught up in these dismal circumstances will be denied the protection rightly afforded to English children in these most welcome measures. It is a disgrace that identical legislation for Scotland has not been introduced. What discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Scottish Office on bringing about these welcome changes in Scottish legislation?
      Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will know of my long-standing interest in this matter, and particularly of my association with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been concerned about the way in which children have been subjected to the process of appearing in court proceedings. I warmly welcome the clauses in the Bill which, to a large extent, implement the recommendations of the Pigot report. There was a gap in the law with respect to expediting proceedings involving witnesses.
      I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy with which he received me and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who advised me today that she was unwell and could not be with us. Together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), we discussed these matters, and the Government amendments meet our anxieties.
      The Minister will have noticed amendments Nos. 98 and 99 on the Order Paper; perhaps he will confirm that the Government amendments deal with the points contained in those amendments—and are no doubt better drafted than ours. If they do, I shall not move amendments
      682
      Nos. 98 or 99; of course, if the Opposition Members whose names those amendments also bear wish to speak to them, that will be up to them.
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for accepting the recommendations made to him on this matter.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister say a word about some other matters touched on in the Pigot report? For instance, should there not be a code of practice governing the giving of evidence by children? Do the Government believe it possible to introduce measures to prevent unnecessary delays in court cases that involve this sort of children's evidence?
      Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the generality of the Pigot committee's recommendations when he speaks of codes of practice, or is he referring specifically to speeding up court hearings?
      Mr. Maclennan: I am referring only to the giving of evidence by children.
      Lastly, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has also mentioned the need to ensure that no distinction will be made between children who have suffered abuse and children who have witnessed serious abuse and violence—but I suspect that the Government amendments take care of that.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I too should like to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I am sure that he will recall that, when we discussed the matter for many hours in Committee, we did not manage to persuade him of the validity of our arguments, but he agreed to reconsider the matter, and that is what he has done. We are most grateful to him. I fervently believe that the law should protect a child witness as much as it protects a child victim. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between them.
      Mr. Sheerman: We welcome the amendments. It is a shame that two of the hon. Members who argued most eloquently for the ideas that they incorporate are not here. I understand that they are unavoidably detained in Select Committees. I refer of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).
      These are important concessions to the Pigot proposals, extending as they do the protection offered to child victims to child witnesses. This subject constituted the most harmonious part of our proceedings in Committee. All hon. Members in Committee wanted as far as possible to make the process of giving evidence in court humane and sensitively handled. The Opposition are pleased that the amendments have been introduced.
      Mr. John Patten: First, I want to answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the first part of whose constituency I can never pronounce. He asked me whether discussions had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland on these important matters. Of course the two Departments consult on these issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish criminal law and criminal code have developed differently from ours, which means that, from time to time, Scottish, English and Welsh law look a little out of kilter. Indeed, my hon. Friends occasionally look with envy at some aspects of the Scottish

      683
      criminal code. For instance, children's panels are often urged on us; we are thought to be lagging behind in that respect, although we are now trying to achieve the same ends in a different way.
      I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, if necessary, he and the hon. Gentleman can correspond thereafter.
      I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that the Government amendments adequately cover the possibility of getting around committal, and of not making it possible for children to be cross-examined by those alleged to have assaulted them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not here today but who takes a considerable interest in the subject.
      I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who was not here earlier to hear my lavish compliments about how she broke the Trappist vows of the Whips and occasionally went to the Back Benches in Committee to argue the case for children. Her arguments, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), were powerful. As the House knows, we are a listening Government; we listened and then we tabled the amendments.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether we were going to introduce a code of practice governing children's evidence. We are. We are already negotiating, if that is the right word to use, these issues with members of the academic community: for instance, with Professor Bull, a notable authority in the area; and with Mr. John Spencer—just to show how broad-minded I am in these matters—fellow of Selwyn college, Cambridge, even though he has occasionally criticised me in print. He is also an expert, and I have not taken offence. We are bent on employing him, if he is willing to advise us within the strict terms of the Bill, on how to incorporate a practical measure for children's evidence.
      I repeat: we are a listening Government and a broad-minded Government, and on this occasion we are a Government with whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was happy to do business on an issue in which party politics played no part. I am happy to pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the part that they played in Committee in dealing with these important matters.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 109, in page 27, line 8, after 'committed', insert
      ';or
      (ii) to have witnessed the commission of the offence,'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 27, line 9, leave out from 'that' to 'by' and insert ',for the purposes of avoiding any prejudice to the welfare of the child, the case should be taken over and proceeded with without delay'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 111 and 120.
      Mr. Patten: The amendments form the second part of the Government's response to the debate in Committee about the need to reduce undue delay in cases involving child witnesses. During our scrutiny of the Pigot clauses,
      684
      the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved a new clause that formed the basis of much of the debate. Despite my considerable sympathy with his intentions and those of my hon. Friends, I was unable to accept the new clause exactly as it stood, because it imposed a strict timetable in criminal cases which I felt could lead to the guilty walking free if it was not adhered to to the letter. The amendments would not impose a strict timetable, but would, I believe, establish a clear framework for the elimination of unnecessary delays.
      Clause 43 already gives the Director of Public Prosecutions power to bypass committal proceedings if he is satisfied that the case should be taken over by the Crown court without delay. Amendments Nos. 110 and 120, however, strengthen that principle by referring explicitly to the welfare of the child, and I think that a number of hon. Members will approve of that. They also impose a clear duty on magistrates courts and the Crown court to consider how best to avoid delay. For the magistrates courts, that means expediting their residual tasks under schedule 5.
      The amendments effectively abolish the argument that is sometimes advanced by those involved in the criminal justice system, that they are not responsible for the delay. They are now responsible for minimising it: the amendments bring that into sharp focus. The amendment will, however, allow judges, who have the often difficult task of dealing with children—whether they are victims or witnesses—to tailor any action to the needs of individual cases, balancing the legitimate interests of child welfare with those of natural justice.
      The remaining amendment simply corrects a minor drafting error.
      Mr. Sheerman: Yet again, we accept and endorse the Government's proposals. As we said in Committee, delay is often an important factor. In Committee on any Criminal Justice Bill, we increasingly realise the need for better co-ordination between the separate parts of the system: Opposition Members want to reform that relationship, and to expedite the processes involved. Justice that takes a long time is justice delayed, and, sometimes, is not justice at all.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 111, in page 27, line 18, leave out '3 and 4' and insert '2 and 3'.—(Mr. John Patten).

    Clause 45

      VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES.
      Amendments made: No. 113, in page 30, line 37, after 'alleged', insert '(i)'.
      No. 112, in page 30, line 38, after 'committed', insert
      '; or
      (ii) to have witnessed the commission of the offence;'.—(Mr. John Patten.)

    Clause 47

      RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN FOR FINANCIAL PENALTIES
      Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 31, line 38, at end insert—
      '(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection.
      '(2A) In taking the decisions required by subsections (1) and (1A) above, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

      (a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence.

      (b) whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum.

      (c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian.

      (d) the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian.
      as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 83, in page 32, line 31, at end add—
      '(5) No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case.'.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister must answer a simple and basic question: does he, and do the Government, accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? If he accepts our amendment, he will ensure that no parent who is innocent of any blame, and no social services department that has done its job properly, will be punished or penalised.
      Amendment No. 82 proposes that, in deciding whether a parent should be required to pay a fine, the court should have regard to a number of considerations that may be relevant. The first is:
      "whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence."
      The second is:
      "whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum."
      The third is:
      "the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian."
      The fourth is:
      "the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian".
      Any other relevant circumstances should also be taken into account.
      That, surely, is an entirely correct and reasonable approach, which has been supported by the Government themselves in Home Office circular to courts No. 3/1983 entitled "Criminal Justice Act 1982: Sanctions Against Parents and Guardians". The 1982 Act stipulated that fines should be paid by parents unless the court considered that that would be unreasonable or the parent could not be found. Paragraph 3 of the circular states:
      "During the passage of the Bill, considerations which might be relevant to the question of whether it would be unreasonable to order payment by the parent or guardian were discussed. It was suggested, for example, that regard should be had to factors such as whether the parents had neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person or whether any such neglect had caused or contributed, whether directly or indirectly, to the commission of the offence; whether it was desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for the payment
      686
      of the fine, compensation or costs, or for part of it; the relationship between the child or young person and the parent or guardian and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering that the parent … pay the sums".
      The Government should surely support the principles contained in the amendment.
      In view of the emphasis that the Government have placed on parental responsibilities, it is important for them to state on the face of the Bill that they are willing to protect responsible parents. If they agree that the court should consider the criteria that I have specified, the criteria must be included in the legislation, rather than relegated to a paragraph in a long-forgotten circular of some eight years ago.
      In come cases it will be appropriate to oblige parents to pay fines imposed on juvenile offenders, but in many others such a course might be both unreasonable and harmful. In some cases, when a young offender is at odds with his parents, the resentment resulting from the imposition of a fine on the parents—who may already be at the end of their tether, especially when the family is poor—could damage family relationships still further, placing the young person more at risk than ever, and perhaps leading to the commission of further offences.
      In some instances, magistrates may consider that, if the fine is to have any value, that will lie in its being paid by the child himself rather than in his parents relieving him of the financial responsibility. I know from my own court experience that that frequently arises. In other cases, the parent may have done all that could reasonably be expected to discipline and control the young person, but without success. All parents will have found occasionally that their best efforts have not succeeded. The Minister may claim to be a perfect parent, but most of us would probably admit to being fallible from time to time.
      It is important that the courts should be required to consider those potential pitfalls when deciding whether to impose a fine on the parent of a juvenile offender. The amendment does not, of course, prevent the court from considering any other factors which may be relevant. It does not prevent the court from placing an obligation on a parent if it is right and proper to do so. It does not mitigate parental responsibility, but it protects the innocent parent and ensures that courts take into account circumstances in which placing a burden on parents would be detrimental. The Minister will surely not disagree with that.
      When the issue was debated in Committee on 24 January, amendment No. 82 was grouped with others and the Minister did not comment specifically on it. Today, he must comment specifically on its merits, and I hope that he will simply accept it.
      6 pm
      Amendment No. 83 says:
      "No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case."
      The amendment limits the circumstances in which a local authority can be required to pay a fine. The clause is far too broad, because it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay fines for the offences of juveniles if they and their employees have acted appropriately and professionally. Home Office circular No. 3/1983 is relevant, and the same considerations should apply to local authorities.

      687
      The Government recognised that in their White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which states that the Government will require local authorities to pay financial penalties when juveniles in their care are convicted of offences and
      "the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties."
      The amendment requires that that statement be included in the Bill, which places no clear statutory obligation on courts to consider whether the local authority has been negligent or unreasonable and to impose a fine only if an authority has been shown to be at fault.
      The assumption in clause 47—an assumption that seems to be in the minds of some of the Government's more right-wing Back Benchers—is that local authorities should always be able to prevent offending by juveniles in their care. That shows little awareness of the reality of caring for those young people, many of whom are persistent young offenders who were taken into care because of their parents' inability to exercise due care and control. The damage caused to those young people may work through to absconding and associated offending. The local authority, which was not responsible for the offending, is left to pick up the pieces.
      The Government seem to have turned the cause and effect relationship upside down, and instead of recognising that those young people are in care because of their offending are blaming the local authority for it. I hope that the Minister will put that right.
      There are dangers if fining local authorities becomes the norm. It could lead to local authorities reducing home leave and family contact with children in care and it could be detrimental to the young person. There may be increased security in children's homes, at the expense of caring and rehabilitative regimes. I hope that the Minister will agree that a failure to rehabilitate young offenders will increase the long-term threat to the public, and that it must be avoided.
      Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. They may be encouraged to feel that they can break the law with impunity.
      Mr. John Patten: The Bill does not say that individual social workers will be fined. The local authority will be at risk for not fulfilling its responsibilities.
      Mr. Michael: The local authority would not be fined for not fulfilling its responsibilities—that is the whole point of my argument—but the amendment seeks to correct that. If the Minister meant what he just said, he will accept the amendment. The amendment aims to provide for what he just suggested; by accepting it, he will make life a lot easier.
      Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. If local authorities are punished, that pressure will be passed down the line. I am sure that the Minister understands what I mean by that. Having worked with young offenders, I can assure him that such amusement is a real danger. It is important that the Bill be amended to provide what the Minister has just suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Patten: I did not want to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman speaks from much personal experience, but for once, uncharacteristically, he seemed to be
      688
      factually incorrect. He said that individual social workers would be at risk financially; it is important that he should not continue to say that.
      Mr. Michael: I take the Minister's point, but he surely understands that, if local authorities, whatever they do and however professional their social workers or correct their systems, are in danger of being forced to pay fines, immense pressure will distort the regime in which social workers work with young people. Young people will rapidly become aware of that and of their ability to play games with their social workers.
      The Minister must take that danger seriously. In his first intervention, he suggested that, under the Bill, social services departments would be placed under a burden only if they failed in their duty. We tabled the amendment to correct that. I hope that the Minister, by his intervention, was accepting the amendment. A local authority should be responsible for financial penalties only in specified circumstances when it has acted negligently or unreasonably. That was what the Minister said, that is what I say and that is the purpose of the amendment.
      In Committee, the Minister said that there was some protection to local authorities under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, that section is merely on whether it would be unreasonable to fine in the circumstances. Amendment No. 83 goes much further and defines the conduct or misconduct of the local authority as the factor that leads to a fine being imposed.
      The amendments are reasonable and fair. They will ensure that innocent parents and effective local authorities will not be in danger of being forced to pay, while allowing a culpable parent or local authority to bear the burden of a fine. How can the Minister possibly refuse that? He almost seemed to concede my point in his intervention, but he must at least assure us that the principles that I have set out will be observed absolutely in the operation of the Bill when it is enacted.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: The points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) link with the Home Secretary's statement on the Woolf report. Everyone is talking about parent responsibility, but allowing parents to avoid it. In the statement, all we heard was about the poor life of prisoners. So far as I can remember, no one deigned to mention how victims suffer or to make the obvious point that people are in prison by choice—they choose to go there when they break the law, and we should not be too concerned.
      We should take great care about making parents responsible for their children's actions, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth seemed to he looking for a way out. If some of the hoax telephone calls of the past week were made by children under the age of 17 or 18, and if their parents knew that their kids had access to the telephone, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should not worry? If a child had been involved in making those hoax phone calls, a three-month sentence for him or his parents would not be justified—the minimum sentence should be five years, with deportation for any foreigners.
      The essence of the point being made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is that we must look for ways to enable parents to avoid their responsibilities. Would he say that they were not paying

      689
      due care and attention if they were watching television while their 12 or 14-year-old was thumping a policeman at a football match? Should we say, "Those parents did not know that their child was at a football match, so we should not worry"? I am glad that we are making parents responsible. Instead of creating loopholes to enable parents to get off, we should tighten them to ensure that they do not.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the clause and support the amendments. I have never been entirely happy with the principle of vicarious criminal liability, which seems to have been embodied in the law for a long time. It does not lead to a need for a court to investigate the degree of parents' criminal liability. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) assumed that parental liability was involved in all circumstances in which a person committed an offence. That should be demonstrated, argued and proved before a court. One of the benefits of amendment No. 82 is that it would make it necessary to argue before a court the extent to which parents should be liable for the misdeeds of their children.
      It is clear from the passage read out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Home Office has in mind precisely those considerations which are encapsulated in the amendment. Including them in the Bill would have the virtue of leading to the facts being considered. It may be that that consideration is given, and will be given, in many courts through the presentation of social work reports and so on. If there is a specific requirement along the lines proposed in amendment No. 82, a court will be in no doubt about whether parents are culpable to such an extent that they should be held liable to pay.
      Similar considerations apply to amendment No. 83 with regard to the alleged negligence of local authorities. If local authorities are held to be liable, that involvement should be tested. They should not be held to have been negligent without the evidence having been considered by a court. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington assumes that, if the children involved are in care, the local authority is responsible for their misdeeds, but that assumption severes the connection between the offence and the person who committed it. That cannot be in the interest of justice. I hope that the Government will accept these sensible amendments.
      Mr. John Patten: I was greatly taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said about hoax telephone calls by juveniles and adults. The House views with revulsion and distaste the hoax telephone calls to the emergency services in recent days, which in certain circumstances could lead to serious injury or loss of life if the emergency services had been diverted. This is a disgraceful habit in the country at large. It is punishable by imprisonment.
      My hon. Friend said that the penalties were not severe enough. He must take credit for bringing to our attention the need to consider this issue. Although I shall not table amendments to the Bill, I shall undertake a review in the Home Office of the penalties that can be imposed on those demented people who make hoax telephone calls about devices, causing chaos not only to the emergency services
      690
      but to the travelling public. Under the present law, the courts are stamping down hard on that behaviour, and I hope that the House welcomes that action. Perhaps we should arm the courts with tougher measures to deal with such people.
      6.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made another important point when he talked about the importance of parental responsibility. I believe that my Conservative colleagues would respectfully agree to disagree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about vicarious penalties. We are talking about those who have charge of children and young people. Whether they are parents, step-parents, grandparents or local authorities, they should bear their share of the responsibility by paying fines if the children involved cannot do so.
      Alas, there is no clearer sign of the division between Conservative Members and the Opposition than the long debates in Committee on these issues. We had to agree to differ. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could not be a member of the Committee. We genuinely missed him, although we have heard on Report some "footsteps" of what might have been a lengthier speech in Committee. We shall have to agree to differ, because the amendments dilute the principle of parental responsibility on which the Government place great weight.
      Mr. Maclennan: Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman or reading his speech later may be forgiven for overlooking the fact that he and the Government have diluted the principle of parental responsibility by changing the 1933 Act. It is a question not whether one dilutes the principle but whether one should define the circumstances of the dilution, which is the purpose of the amendment.
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten three fundamental limbs of the Bill: first, that we expect parents to be in court when their children are tried; secondly, that we expect parents, guardians and social services departments to pay the fines; and, thirdly, that we want the courts to have a considerably enhanced power to bind over parents to use their best endeavours to prevent children offending. If that is dilution, I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic misuse of language.
      In all cases, before a parent could be ordered to pay a fine, the court would have to think about several factors, such as whether the offence resulted partly from a failure to exercise parental care and control and what effect making the parents pay would have on family relationships. The court would have to take a view on those factors and presumably—although it is not for me to say—that view could be challenged on appeal. That means that obstacles would be placed in the way of the operation of section 55 of the 1933 Act, and the clear principle that it embodies.
      When we discussed what is now amendment No. 82—to which allegedly the relevant Minister did not refer in Committee—either the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) or the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) quoted from paragraph 3 of Home Office circular No. 3/1983 on the Criminal Justice Act 1982. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out, paragraph 3 suggested that the courts

      691
      might want to take account of certain factors—which have been reproduced in amendment No. 82—in deciding whether to make the parent or guardian pay a fine.
      There is a world of difference between giving guidance to courts in various ways about those matters that they should consider—which we do all the time as a matter of sentencing practice—and requiring them by statute to take account of those and other considerations in every case. That would result in an inflexible approach and would considerably slow down justice.
      I turn now to amendment No. 83. The purpose of clause 47(2) is to bring local authorities within the scope of the law on the parental payment of children's fines in section 55 of the 1933 Act. Local authorities that are prepared to take children into care should face up to, and meet, the same responsibilities as parents. Many do so, but, alas, a few do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington thinks that a good number do not.
      We should be clear that clause 47 will apply to local authorities only under certain restricted circumstances. The Government firmly believe that those with parental responsibility must expect to face the consequences. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted from that excellently written White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public". He was right to state that we propose that the parental payment provision should apply to local authorities only where
      "the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties."
      That is broadly the purpose of the Opposition amendment.
      However, on reflection, it is not right to take that approach. It would give the courts an impossible task to perform before they could require a local authority to pay a fine. The courts would have to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the local authority had been negligent. That would turn into a mini-public inquiry into the procedures of the social services department in question. Youth courts are not equipped to do that, nor should they be asked to do it.
      We believe that it would be better to give local authority social services departments, which try hard in many areas to do a good job, the protection already afforded by section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 55 provides an exception to the parental payment requirement where
      "It would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case."
      That means that, where local authorities had properly carried out their responsibilities, courts would not be required to make an order against them. On the other hand, where local authorities had failed in their duties, the courts would be empowered to make a direction.
      The approach followed in the Opposition amendment is unnecessary and counter-productive. Clearly there is a yawning gap between the Opposition and the Government, and I do not believe that we will be able to cross that gap easily.
      Mr. Maclennan rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He would require the leave of the House before he could speak again.
      Mr. Michael: I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in their characterisation of hoax telephone calls, especially where those calls
      692
      receive the oxygen of publicity. Those calls can be tremendously damaging to society, but they have nothing to do with the amendment.
      The amendment is simple. Do the Government accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? In a schizophrenic speech, the Minister made it clear that he does not care if the innocent are punished. In a characteristic speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington showed, as he showed in Standing Committee, that he has extreme views. He is not interested in the effectiveness of the sentence in reducing crime in the future and in protecting the public. He is interested only in fanning the flames of his own prejudice.
      Under amendment No. 82, a parent who is negligent or is somehow to blame can be made to bear part, or all, of the burden of the fine. For half his comments, the Minister appeared to agree with Home Office circular No. 3/1983, which sets out the reasonable principles upon which the courts should operate. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide clear guidance to the courts. It would not constrain them. The amendment does not suggest that parents who share responsibility or the social services departments, which through failure, share responsibility, should not share the burden of payment.
      The amendment is extremely fair, reasonable and simple.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is creating a considerable smokescreen? He is trying to give some of his more atavistic Back Benchers the impression that he toughening up, but he has really imposed a power in place of a duty in respect of those aged over 16, and in that respect he has misled the House.
      Mr. Michael: That is absolutely correct. The Minister either agrees with circular No. 3/1983, in which case he can accept the amendment without difficulty, or he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, and if he goes to that extreme, he will destroy any reputation for reasonableness and liberality that he worked so hard to gain in Standing Committee.
      At the end of the day, the Minister does not care whether the innocent parent or local authority is punished. By failing to restate with great authority the recommendations in circular No. 3/1983, he has introduced an clement of doubt.
      I am certain that we will return to the amendment, perhaps with greater understanding and knowledge, in another place, and to allow that to happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 48

      BINDING OVER OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN
      Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 32, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36, and insert
      'a child or young person ("the relevant minor")'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 115.
      Mr. Patten: The Government believe very strongly that parents have the single most important responsibility for ensuring that their children grow up to respect the law. Just before Christmas, the Home Office conducted a public

      693
      opinion survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I could have been knocked down by a feather by the results, which showed, that with regard to preventing crime, the general public point the finger not at the Government, the police or schools, but at parents. The survey showed that 53 per cent. pointed the finger at parents. If we had conducted such a survey five or 10 years ago, there would have been a completely different response. There is a considerable sea change in the country. The Government have recognised it, and we are doing all we can to use that considerable change in public opinion away from the dated and outmoded concepts of the 1960s and 1970s.
      Mr. Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the amendment does nothing else, it concentrates the minds of parents about their responsibilities and about where their kids are while they sit around with their feet up watching television?
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Nothing brings that home to me more sharply than the police telling me that, in 1988, 8,000 events happened that would otherwise have been crimes committed by children aged nine and under, who were therefore below the age of criminal responsibility. Some of those events were quite serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has it game, set and match on the basis of that statistic.
      The responsibility of parenthood begins when children are very young and it continues until they are on the edge of maturity and of becoming responsible adults. That parental responsibility for children's behaviour does not cease when children get into trouble—quite the reverse. It is precisely because their children have got into trouble that parents should become involved. It is then that the firm hand or the quiet word can make all the difference.
      Clause 48 ensures that parents are involved at what is inevitably a very difficult time for their children. For those under 16, we believe that it is correct that courts should have a duty to ensure that parents are involved, by binding them over. Many 16 and 17-year-olds will also need a firm hand and guidance if they are to succeed in keeping out of trouble. However, many will be living independent lives, and it would not be right to suggest that parents should take responsibility for their behaviour.
      Clause 48 states that there is no cut-off point between being a child and being an adult. Some people mature at different rates between the ages of 16 and 17. There are tough, yobbish, thuggish 15-year-olds and wimpish 16 and 17-year-olds who deserve to be treated like children.
      The proposal in clause 48 complements the other proposals relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 strengthen those provisions further by removing inconsistencies in drafting which, I should be the first to state, were identified by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I seem to be paying compliments to Opposition Members who are absent this afternoon.
      In Committee, the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish mentioned several important matters which should be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Huddersfield argued that the distinction that clause 48(1)(b) makes between 16 and 17-year-olds living at home who are in full-time education and 16 and 17-year-olds
      694
      who are not, is artificial. A 16-year-old who is living at home but is not in full-time education may be equally or more in need of parental guidance than a 16-year-old living at home and in full-time education. Although the subsection was simply intended to take account of the practical limitations of parental influence over young people who live at home, I accept that the link with full-time education is, perhaps, artificial. I should not want to include in the Bill provisions that inadvertently encourage young people to leave school, home, or both at the same time.
      6.30 pm
      I also share the concern expressed by the now absent hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who explained how linking the power to bind over a parent to the age and circumstances of the offender might allow a devious-minded 16-year-old to get around the provision by delaying conviction proceedings. That is why the Government have decided to table amendments Nos. 114 and 115, which would achieve the desirable end of empowering the court to bind over the parents of any 16 or 17-year-olds, when they consider such action helpful and sensible. The court would remain under a duty to do that where the child was under 16.
      The amendments deal with two of the fears expressed by the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish, and will further improve the provisions regarding the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-olds and the encouragement of parental involvement. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for his compliments about the way in which Opposition Members made proposals. He made some nice comments about the Opposition's ability to argue rationally in Committee.
      The amendments remove the absurd proposal that parents of 16-year-olds living at home and in full-time education can be bound over to prevent their children from offending. The inconsistency is that parents may be held responsible for young people who have stayed on in full-time education and who live at the parental home, and may be bound over to exercise proper care and control over the young person. However, if a young person is over 16 and is in work, is unemployed or has left home, the parents cannot be held responsible. Clearly, that is absurd.
      I noticed that, every time a concession was made in Committee, the Minister left the Room to allow his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to deal with it. It is nice to see him conceding such a major argument on which amendments were tabled by the Opposition, but the consequence is that the superb speech that I was going to make on amendment No. 97 no longer needs to be made.
      Mr. Patten: That is why I made the concession.
      Mr. Randall: It means that I have had to make the speech that I would have made for amendment No. 97 in this debate.
      The Minister's concession is good news because it means that we shall not have to debate amendment No. 97.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 115, in page 32, line 39, leave out
      'falling within paragraph (a) above'
      and insert

      695
      'where the relevant minor has not attained the age of 16 years'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 32, line 41 at end insert—
      '(1A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

      (a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence,

      (b) whether exercising the powers conferred by this section would reduce the likelihood that the child or young person himself will accept personal responsibility for his actions,

      (c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of exercising the powers conferred by this section, as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.

      The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. Although the Labour party takes the subject of parental responsibility extremely seriously, we have different ways of expressing it.
      I do not wish to interfere with your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that the Minister's important remarks about hoax calls were rather out of order. However, we agree with him about the wickedness of such behaviour. It is important to make hoaxers realise that the technology now exists to catch them and that increasingly sophisticated telecommunications equipment means that they will be caught and penalised. Stopping young people offending in the first place is far more effective than dealing with them afterwards. The most effective way to ensure that they do not offend is to make sure that they know that the probability of their being caught is high.
      Although we believe in parental responsibility, our notion of it is rather different from that of the Government. The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. In Committee, the Minister often said that we are having our cake and eating it, because we do not like the clause on parental responsibility any more than we like the privatisation of prisons. When we realise that we shall not win a vote on the principle of an issue, we try to improve the clause and that aspect of the Bill, even though we disagree with the principle. I hope that the Minister does not come back with his tired old chestnut in response to the amendment.
      It is important to emphasise that the inclusion of such criteria would go some way toward reducing the serious disquiet that the clause causes to those who work with and sentence juvenile offenders. The clause disturbs expert opinion in the criminal justice system and that is, in itself, disturbing. As we said earlier with reference to Lord Justice Woolf's report, it is important to work with the people who maintain and run the system. If the magistrates, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates' clerks do not like a proposal, there is little chance of making it a success.
      We predict that the clause will be stillborn. It provides that, when a juvenile is convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents
      "to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him"
      unless it is considered that that would be unreasonable. The parents would be bound over in a specified sum up to £1,000 and, if the child re-offended, the parents woulld be liable to forfeit that amount. In effect, a binding over
      696
      amounts to a suspended fine. Binding over requires the parents' consent, but the clause empowers courts to fine parents who refuse to be bound over, which renders the idea of consent entirely academic. It is a strange piece of legislation—a sort of Catch 22. I could think of a ruder expression, which I probably should not use because it might be unparliamentary. If someone does not obey the legislation, he has the right to protest, but he will have to pay anyway. The parents will always have to pay.
      Magistrates are extremely concerned about the possible effects of the clause and the Magistrates Association has made known its strong opposition to the proposal. In its comments on last year's White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the association referred to
      "the harmful effect these proposals could have in hastening a breakdown of family relationships".
      It continued:
      "Parents may feel that they are being punished twice for one offence of their child".
      It is sad that we in the House can easily become divorced from the reality of parenting which is not normal, but marginal. As a student of economics many years ago, I was interested in the marginal concept. We made judgments on marginal utility and marginal demand. When dealing with the criminal justice system, it is important to remember that it impacts most on the marginal family that is just holding itself together with a little bit of luck and making its way through a crisis.
      The Minister and the Government have not realised—but magistrates and probation officers do—that to fine parents in many of the families of which we are talking this evening could be the last marginal straw in breaking up that family. That may not concern the Minister, but it concerns the Opposition. We do not want legislation that destroys families instead of binding them together. We do not want more children being forced to live rough in London rather than staying at home because the feeling within the family has become so bitter that they leave home. The clause would help to do that.
      The Justices' Clerks Society opposed the clause in its comments on the White Paper and cited a number of additional practical reasons for its concern. It said:
      "We oppose the proposals relating to the binding over of parents to take proper care of children and to exercise proper control over them. We foresee protracted hearings where parents refuse to be bound over and it is our view that a fine on a recalcitrant parent would be inappropriate … We also believe that the introduction of the requirement will inevitably lead to more contested juvenile cases, particularly where parents were already subject to a bind over. Even where the offence is admitted or proved, proceedings in relation to whether or not the parent (and if so which one) should forfeit the recognisance will lead to further, often disputed, hearings."
      Anyone who is familiar with magistrates courts will know that justices' clerks are the most experienced in such matters, spend all their time in courts and give advice to magistrates. They are central to the role of the magistrates courts. I should have thought that the Minister would take more notice of their views. Unfortunately, the clause is driven by the unacceptable right of the Conservative party. I do not know whether the legislation on parental responsibility was made in some hidden, smoke-filled room of the Monday Club—we all know what a disgraceful organisation that is—or by another of the secret right-wing societies in the Conservative party.

      697
      6.45 pm
      Magistrates already have the power to bind over parents in most cases, but they use it in only a handful of cases a year, because they know that in most cases it will not work. The Minister will have another chance in a moment, but in Committee he adeptly sidestepped my question about why, if the power already exists, magistrates do not use it. Will the Minister come back to explain why our contention is wrong? We believe that the power will not be used and that clause 48 will be stillborn. If the Government continue to pass legislation on the basis of ideology rather than what is good and workable, they will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. It is bad to base law not on human behaviour, but on political ideology.
      We believe that making parents forfeit money will increase the pressure on many families for whom life is already a struggle and penalising parents for their children's actions will cause enormous resentment. Where there is already tension between parents and child, it will aggravate relationships still further, putting young people even more at risk. In all too many cases, that is likely to accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house and swell the growing ranks of young homeless.
      The clause is opposed by organisations representing magistrates, justices' clerks, probation officers and social workers, all of whom fully accept the importance of parental responsibility and are actively concerned to find effective ways of reinforcing it. They are the professionals who care about parental responsibility, not some nice little middle-class group, tucked away and working at a distance from the real problems of our country. It is all very well for the nice, tidy, middle-class minority, but the parents with whom we are dealing are the ones for whom the professionals know the reality is different.
      I shall quote from a truly revolutionary, red source, The Times. The argument against the clause was summarised in a leading article on 10 November 1990—perhaps Conservative Members hold their breath—which stated:
      "This is the kind of proposal that makes perfect sense to middle class ministers."—
      [Interruption.] The nice, middle-class Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not want to listen—I cannot think of anyone nicer or more middle-class.
      The Times leader talked about
      "middle class Ministers, who generally leave the taming of adolescence to their children's boarding schools."
      How true that is. It would be lovely to see some of the Cabinet sending their children to ordinary, public sector schools. The article continued:
      "For, say, the single mother in Brixton, struggling against odds to keep a young person on track, they represent only a threat. Many such parents will be tempted to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Parental influence—the last, best hope of deflecting the youngster from a life of crime—will be removed. The magistrates do not want these powers. Parliament should not force them to have them."
      The Government have made it clear that they are determined to press ahead with the proposal despite widespread opposition. By accepting the amendment, they could at least reduce the damage that it is otherwise likely to cause families. I make a last plea to the Minister to think again about the clause, because it will help to destroy parents, families and responsibility.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest as a solicitor. The clause has nothing to do with
      698
      nice middle-class Ministers, the right wing of the Conservative party or the middle classes, but a lot to do with sound sense. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has known me for some years and knows that I am on the left of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman might think that I am one of the soggy ones. I inform him that the clause appeals to the whole range of thinking throughout the country. It is not from a Tory think tank.
      The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) talked about punishing innocent parents. When a youngster commits a crime, I am not even sure whether there is such a thing as an innocent parent. Parents have responsibility for what their children do. Anything that hon. Members can do to reinforce parental responsibility must be welcomed.
      I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Magistrates Association was against the clause. I can speak only anecdotally, but almost to a man, the magistrates whom I have known over the years have said that they wanted stiffer powers to make sure that parents were held more accountable. I have appeared in courts many times as an advocate for youngsters aged 15, 16 or 17. Sometimes the parent will be present in court, and he will be asked, "How do you explain the crime that this 17-year-old committed? He was drinking in pubs and then got involved in violence at 10 o'clock at night." That parent may say, "It's up to him. His own time is his own. I don't bother about where he goes after school." Without a doubt, such a parent should be bound over and held accountable for that offence. Another parent may say, "I thought that my son was at the youth club, because that's where he said he was going." Clearly, it would be unreasonable to punish that parent. The courts will be sensible enough to deal harshly only with parents who display an attitude that shows that they could not care less.
      I sometimes wonder whether we should extend parental responsibility to those in loco parentis. What about all the young men and women from all social classes who are at fine boarding schools such as Eton and Harrow? Those schools are in loco parentis during term time. The head teachers should be taken to the local magistrates court if one of their 17-year-olds is caught out on a drunken spree. I say that seriously, because schools take their in loco parentis role very seriously. They should be included in the legislation. We must do whatever we can to reinforce parental responsibility.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Government have been at some pains to show that they do not wish to fetter the discretion of the judiciary. They used that argument most powerfully in the debate on the sentencing council but, exceptionally, in respect of this clause, they appear to want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary and to do so in circumstances that are opposed by all hon. Members who have representative roles in the administration of the criminal justice system.
      This is a bad clause. Clearly it will be honoured in the breach more than in the observance. It is a bad clause because it removes from the court the right to consider the appropriateness of doing what it may wish to do by imposing upon the court a duty that it must discharge unless it thinks it unreasonable so to do. The amendment would remove the sting of the clause by describing the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to do so. If the Minister argues that there is some discretion, it

      699
      would be appropriate to acknowledge the wisdom of describing the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised. There has been considerable debate about this matter, but I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will not seek to trumpet the Government's concern for parental responsibility as being greater than that of hon. Members who take a different view about how parental responsibility is best reinforced.
      The House is aware of the importance of parents in minimising behaviour that leads to crime and of the crucial role that parents can play. However, it cannot be right to impose upon parents a duty that excludes the particular circumstances of cases before the courts. If it were right, I do not believe that those who administer the criminal justice system and have responsibility would unanimously believe that the Government have got it wrong.
      Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) cannot have read the Bill. We are not in Standing Committee—the Bill is being considered on Report. The reference to reasonableness is there for all the world to see. It is on page 32 of the Bill. Clause 48(1)(b) uses the words,
      "to exercise those powers unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so".
      The courts have all the opportunity they need to take into account that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable.
      There is nothing onerous on the courts or on those who come before the courts. Rather, there is a great opportunity, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in a speech that was not only robust but was founded on his experiences in dealing with such issues in the courts. There is everything to be said for having that binding-over power not to punish but to prevent future crime. That is what we are attempting to do.
      To use a phrase that I can remember being used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was Home Secretary, we are trying to ensure that children grow straight rather than crooked. If, by the intervention of the courts trying to encourage parents to take their responsibilities more seriously, children can be prevented from continuing to grow crooked, that is a very good thing. This measure has nothing to do with punishing parents but everything to do with trying to persuade them to take their responsibilities seriously and with preventing future criminality.
      Mr. John Greenway: I spoke to a magistrate only the other day in relation to a case in which a child of only 14 was persistently playing truant. The father did not know that the child's truancy had gone on for six months, and it was subsequently discovered that, during those periods of truancy, many minor but nevertheless serious offences were committed. I am absolutely convinced, as is my right hon. Friend, that it is important to confront the parent with the reality of what the child is up to. That is the real benefit of the measure.
      Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend says, this measure brings the parents slap up face to face with their responsibilities. I was interested in the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West that we should bring head teachers face to face with their responsibilities, too. I do not think that that is a matter for this Bill, but it is food for thought for a future Bill. My
      700
      right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is very concerned about truancy. We in the Home Office are worried about truancy. If we can deal with the truancy problem more effectively, we can not only prevent offending but bring up children who will perform better and achieve better in school.
      We had long debates on this issue in Committee. Of course I take into account the views of the Magistrates Association and of justices' clerks as expressed by their national organisations, but there are about 27,000 magistrates in the country, and their views vary widely. Many magistrates strongly support our view.
      Mr. Dicks: We are legislators; we protect the public. We do not legislate for the best interests of magistrates, magistrates' clerks, probation officers or social workers.
      7 pm
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will recall that, all through the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) kept talking about "the lobby" and holding up and reading from bits of paper which referred to the lobby's views. As my hon. Friend said, we are legislators, and we act in the public interest. We take into account the views of national bodies, which are important, but we must make up our own minds.
      Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and I disagreed many times in Committee, especially about his attack on magistrates, which he withdrew. The Minister said that there were 27,000 magistrates and that their opinions differed widely depending on which clutch one talked to. If the measure is so popular, why is not it currently used by magistrates in more than a handful of cases?
      Mr. Patten: The present legislation is not drafted in such a way as to encourage its use. We intend to introduce an integrated package of powers along the three particular tracks to which I referred earlier. That package, together with much more training for the magistracy in these matters, will lead to the much greater use of those powers by magistrates courts—and a good thing, too.
      Amendment No. 90 is similar in intention to amendment No. 82. My reasons for opposing it are identical to those which I adduced in opposing amendment No. 82. Similar objections arise. I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 263.

      Division No. 78]

      [7.01 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Benton, Joseph

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Alton, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Blunkett, David

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Boateng, Paul

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Barron, Kevin

      Caborn, Richard

      Battle, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Bellotti, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Canavan, Dennis

      701

      Cartwright, John

      McKelvey, William

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McLeish, Henry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clelland, David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McWilliam, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Madden, Max

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Corbett, Robin

      Marek, Dr John

      Crowther, Stan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cryer, Bob

      Martlew, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Maxton, John

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Meacher, Michael

      Dalyell, Tam

      Meale, Alan

      Darling, Alistair

      Michael, Alun

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dixon, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Dobson, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Doran, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mullin, Chris

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Murphy, Paul

      Eadie, Alexander

      Nellist, Dave

      Faulds, Andrew

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Fraser, John

      Parry, Robert

      Fyfe, Maria

      Patchett, Terry

      Galbraith, Sam

      Pendry, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Prescott, John

      George, Bruce

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Radice, Giles

      Gordon, Mildred

      Randall, Stuart

      Gould, Bryan

      Redmond, Martin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Richardson, Jo

      Grocott, Bruce

      Robertson, George

      Hardy, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rooker, Jeff

      Haynes, Frank

      Rooney, Terence

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Henderson, Doug

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Home Robertson, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Short, Clare

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Illsley, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ingram, Adam

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Turner, Dennis

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Vaz, Keith

      Lambie, David

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Leighton, Ron

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Litherland, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wilson, Brian

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Winnick, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      McAllion, John

      Worthington, Tony

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McCartney, Ian

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Tellers for the Ayes

      McFall, John

      Mr. Martyn Jones and Mr. Ken Eastham.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      702

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Alexander, Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Allason, Rupert

      Forman, Nigel

      Amess, David

      Forth, Eric

      Amos, Alan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashby, David

      French, Douglas

      Atkinson, David

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Beggs, Roy

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Grist, Ian

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ground, Patrick

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hague, William

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

      Boswell, Tim

      Harris, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hayward, Robert

      Bowis, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Bright, Graham

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Burns, Simon

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Butler, Chris

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Irvine, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Cash, William

      Jackson, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jessel, Toby

      Chapman, Sydney

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Key, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Kilfedder, James

      Colvin, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Conway, Derek

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knapman, Roger

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knowles, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Knox, David

      Curry, David

      Latham, Michael

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

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Day, Stephen

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Dicks, Terry

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Dover, Den

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Dunn, Bob

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maclean, David

      Eggar, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Emery, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Madel, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fallon, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Favell, Tony

      Maples, John

      703

      Marlow, Tony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mates, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Squire, Robin

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stern, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Lewis

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sumberg, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mudd, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trippier, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pawsey, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Portillo, Michael

      Walden, George

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Price, Sir David

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Ward, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Redwood, John

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Whitney, Ray

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rost, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Yeo, Tim

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

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

      Shelton, Sir William

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 51

      ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 35, line 43, al end insert:
      '(6) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(5A) In dealing with an offender under subsection (3)(a) or (5) above, the court concerned—

      (a) shall take into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the requirements of the attendance centre order; and

      (b) may assume, in the case of an offender who has wilfully and persistently failed to comply with those requirements, that he has refused to give his consent to a community sentence which has been proposed by the court and requires that consent.".'—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 64

      POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF ARRANGEMENTS
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 42, line 34, after 'wellbeing', insert
      to protect them as far as possible from public scrutiny and insult, and in any such conveyances as are used to transport them to provide them with adequate ventilation, light and standards of physical comfort.'.
      The amendment will bring the regulations governing the custody and transportation of prisoners outside prison into line with the European prison rules. Rule 50 states:
      "When prisoners are being removed to or from an institution, they shall be exposed to the public view as little as possible, and proper safeguards shall be adopted to protect them from insult, curiosity and publicity in any form."
      The second part of rule 50 states:
      "The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light, or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship or indignity, shall be prohibited."
      The European rules are not binding in law but the Council of Europe recommends that
      "governments of member states be guided in their internal legislation and practice by the principles set out in the text of the European Prison Rules … with a view to their progressive implementation."
      The Committee of Ministers included that recommendation in the preamble to the rules, adopted by it on 12 February 1987.
      In addition to requiring the adoption of the European prison rules, the amendment would extend to the prisoner custody officers the requirement of domestic rule 38, which states:
      "A person being taken to and from a prison in custody shall be exposed as little as possible to public observation, and proper care shall be taken to protect him from curiosity and insult."
      The need for regulations governing the physical conditions in vehicles used to transport prisoners was graphically illustrated by the death from heat stroke in 1989 of Terence O'Shea. He was being transported from court to prison in a prison van with inadequate ventilation. The pathologist who carried out the investigation into the death said that, even five hours after his death, Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was still 2 deg Centigrade above normal. Perhaps the Minister of State will remember from physics that one can almost double the temperature to convert it into degrees Fahrenheit. That means that Mr. O'Shea's body temperature would have been about 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal. I do not know whether the Minister remembers the formula—I do: it is F minus 32 divided by nine equals C divided by 5. I am sure that the Minister will find that, by inserting 2 deg Centigrade into the formula. Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal which is serious.
      If the transportation of prisoners is contracted out to private companies which, by definition, are bound to have different motives from public organisations, there may be a temptation for them to cut costs and not provide adequate care and attention for the prisoners, which may result in inadequate ventilation and space. Our amendment seeks to make such unnecessary and wrong cost-cutting impossible.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to private companies. He

      705
      should bear in mind the fact that, if a private company has a contract, it will have an incentive to keep standards high so that it does not lose the contract when it is renewed. I appreciate that there is an ideological divide, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that what we have found in Southend-on-Sea when we have privatised some services is that private contractors want to maintain standards so that they can keep the job next time round?
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument, and I agree that that is the case, but the other side of it is that, to keep the business, a contractor would have to compete with the public sector, and to do so, he would undercut it on cost. The question is, where do the priorities lie in terms of cost-cutting? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, where hospital services, such as catering, have been privatised in his constituency of Southend, East, there are numerous examples of things going wrong if there is too much cost-cutting. We are simply saying that there is a threat of such things happening. The Terence O'Shea case shows that we are talking about a real problem.
      I am sure that the Minister of State will remember discussing this matter in Committee, when she said:
      "although I cannot accept the amendment with its current-wording, it would be churlish of me indeed not to take it away and consider bringing back at a later stage a suitable amendment which covers the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly about adequate lighting and ventilation, which I believe is already covered."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 1991: c. 564.]
      Opposition Members came to this debate expecting the Government to table an amendment on this subject. Sadly, however, we have been disappointed. I do not believe that the right hon. Lady is being churlish, because that is not her nature, so other mechanisms within the Home Office must be causing this important matter not to be amended in legislation. The consequence is that the recommendations of the European Economic Community and the other rules to which I have referred, which exist purely to ensure good practice, are being omitted from our legislation. We regret that, and will listen carefully to see why the Minister has failed to table the amendment that we expected.
      Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has given me a little to think about. He reminded me of my physics lessons. Although physics was not one of my best subjects at school. I was not so bad at it that I could not recognise the intensity of heat to which Mr. O'Shea was subjected when he was being escorted.
      We take extremely seriously the importance of protecting from curiosity and insult those who are being escorted and of ensuring adequate heat, ventilation and lighting. Although I have failed significantly in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman—kind though he has been towards me this evening and sorry though I am to have been unable to table the amendment to which he was looking forward—we shall table an amendment in another place in the form, we believe, of an order-making power so that, in relation to contracted-out prison escorts, the Secretary of State can make rules to protect prisoners from public scrutiny and insult.
      The rules will be similar to the present rule 38(1) to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East
      706
      (Mr. Taylor) alluded in relation to private, contracted-out escort services. It is, however, important to remember that the O'Shea case occurred when the public sector was responsible for escorting. The rules need to be changed to ensure that, while prisoners are being escorted in the private sector, they have protection similar to that which they enjoyed before.
      In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will feel reassured. Although I have been unable to table such an amendment this evening, it will be tabled in another place.
      Mr. Randall: Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has said. It appears that she recognises the seriousness of the problem but was prevented from tabling an amendment today because of the lack of time to consider it fully. I note that she has said that the Government will introduce a measure in another place in the form of an order-making power. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the Minister's attitude and look forward to an amendment being inserted in the Bill in another place.
      Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 66

      POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF ARRANGEMENTS
      Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 43, leave out lines 13 and 14.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 117, in page 43, line 16, leave out 'to which this section applies' and insert
      'which—

      (a) is established after the commencement of this section; and

      (b) is for the confinement of remand prisoners, that is to say, persons charged with offences who are remanded in or committed to custody pending their trial, or persons committed to custody on their conviction who have not been sentenced for their offences;'.

      No. 118, in page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert——
      '(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (2) above either—

      (a) paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph; or

      (b) paragraph (b) and the said word "and" or

      (c) the words from "which", in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b).

      (5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      No. 119, in clause 74, page 47, leave out line 8.
      Mr. Greenway: Clause 66 provides the framework for a private sector experiment through the provision of a new remand centre at Everthorpe.
      In Committee, I introduced a group of amendments which would have had the effect of considerably widening the opportunity for private sector involvement throughout the prison service. We argued for that proposal for many hours, and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend

      707
      the Minister of State has not been convinced by my arguments and has not agreed to the bolder step that I suggested.
      I hope to have a little more success with this group of amendments. They are technical amendments, which would allow the experiment at Everthorpe to be extended in the light of the experience of that project. I acknowledge that my enthusiasm for private sector involvement in the remand system—and perhaps, eventually, in the prison service—is not shared at all by Opposition Members, or fully shared by some of my hon. Friends, who believe that we should proceed with much greater caution. I accept and acknowledge that majority view.
      However, I hope that my right hon. Friend might see the wisdom of incorporating in the Bill a framework under which, subject to the agreement of Parliament. the experiment could be taken a stage further if the plans for Everthorpe prove successful. The changes I propose in these amendments would give the Home Secretary and the House the flexibility that the clause as drafted denies.
      Surely, on the day on which Lord Justice Woolf s report has at long last been published, hon. Members can agree at least on the desirability of improving the prison regime still further. We shall need time to reflect on the detail of the Woolf recommendations. I have already spotted the suggestion concerning the provision of community prisons, with a view to maintaining links between a prisoner and his family and the community. I am sure that that would be very beneficial. Then there are the suggestions concerning alternative methods of managing prisons.
      As I said in Committee, the need to improve the prison regime is urgent and great. It would be wrong to close our minds to some of the more innovative opportunities that the private sector may be able to offer. I acknowledge the need for a cautious approach, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that in these amendments we have struck the right balance, and that she will find it possible to accept them.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said. In so doing, I am reminded of Corrie primary school on the island of Arran. Many years ago, I was a Minister in the Scottish Office for about a year and a half. There were lots of exciting things that I wanted to do, and lots of exciting reforms that I wanted to introduce, but looking back on that year and a half, the only specific thing that I recall achieving was keeping Corrie primary school open. The local council had proposed that it be closed, but as a Minister I had power to overturn that proposal. I did so, on the grounds that I thought that the school would prosper. Happily, it survives to this day. To justify my faith in my real achievement, I go to Arran every year for a holiday. That is one way of seeing the greatness of what I have done in politics over a period of 26 years.
      In what way is Corrie primary school relevant to this clause, which, so far as I can see, is intended to be a great reforming provision? On the basis of what is laid down, it seems that only one remand prison will be available for consideration. Criminal justice measures come before us very rarely. If we have this as the basis of our experiment, and if we wait three or four years to see how it progresses, the prospect of reform will be very limited indeed. We are
      708
      not saying that there is a case for changing the whole character of the legislation—indeed, that cannot be done at Report stage—but we should have the opportunity—perhaps next year, perhaps the year after—to bring forward some regulations by which the matter could be reopened.
      Why has there been so little progress? At the time of the Corrie school incident to which I referred, we had a very large, enthusiastic and talented civil service, whose members knew far more about everything than I did. That is why they did nothing at all—which was probably very wise. In the prisons section of the Home Office there are some extremely talented people, who probably know more about everything than I do. There is always a temptation for individuals to hold back, to avoid going too far. I hope that this Minister will have a great reforming career. Indeed, I know she will. She has great ability and integrity. I am asking her not to overturn the clause or to reopen the whole business, but simply to accept that, if there is a possibility—perhaps next year or the year after that—of reopening the subject by bringing forward regulations, that possibility should be grasped.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has been very reasonable, which is unusual for someone who consistently supports farmers. What he is saying is that things like this should not simply slip through but should be subject to affirmative resolution. Nothing could be more reasonable. Most of the views that my hon. Friend expresses are ones that I, as a Conservative, find it difficult to support. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a very reasonable proposal which does not go too far.
      We do not want to see the Minister's hands tied so that nothing can be done. There should be some arrangement whereby she could come back to the House and advise hon. Members to consider arrangements that had worked out. Perhaps they would not have worked out. All I am saying is that we should have some arrangement whereby, without drafting a completely new law, the case could be reopened. I hope that the Minister, who always displays reasonableness, will allow this little chink of light for the benefit of those who think that there is something worth while here.
      Mr. Sheerman: This is the part of the Bill to which we object most strongly. I am sure that no hon. Member fails to understand the reasons for our objection. We believe that pressure is being exerted by certain elements in the Conservative party to push the Bill in an even more radically rightward direction.
      Earlier today, we were talking about the most important report of Lord Justice Woolf. When I pressed the Home Secretary on whether the change of direction was a philosophical one, he did not seem to understand my point. That point is absolutely germane to this debate. For 12 years, the Government, instead of addressing the fundamental problems of our penal system, have thrown money—£1 billion—at the problem by building new prisons, but that did not work. More recently, they have come up with the notion—stimulated by organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute—that private prisons may provide the answer. In fact, neither is the correct approach, because the Government have got the philosophy wrong.
      If the Minister is right in terms of her commitment to Woolf, she will one day reflect—probably quietly, away from the television lights and the Chamber—on the fact

      709
      that acceptance of the philosophy of Woolf involves accepting a total change of direction as a fundamental necessity. If she were to accept the pressure from some of her right-wing colleagues, on the Standing Committee and outside it, to broaden the scope of privatisation—which is what this amendment would do—she would be making the mistake of retaining the old bankrupt philosophy. What Woolf has provided—if only the Government could recognise it—is an opportunity to come up with the correct solutions to the problems of penal policy. The whole country would be grateful if the Government would show the courage and clarity of thought which are necessary to recognise that.
      I expect that I shall not be successful, but I must try to persuade the right hon. Lady that, if she were able to recognise that dichotomy, she would reluctantly tell her colleagues that the Government had seen the light. I realise, of course, that she has to be polite to her colleagues. On this first day post-Woolf, the Government should show a willingness to change direction by refusing to go down the road of privatisation. The Labour party is totally opposed to the proposals for private remand prisons. We have always said that this would be the thin end of the privatisation wedge. Indeed, before the Bill had completed its Committee stage, the Minister had changed her mind and moved further in the direction of privatisation per se, rather than just privatisation of remand prisons.
      We find those proposals repugnant. The case against privatisation was put most eloquently in July 1987. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary, who was sitting on the Front Bench only a few minutes ago, is not here now to hear me quote the words that he uttered as Home Secretary. He said:
      "I do not think that there is a case, and I do not believe that the House would accept a case, for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1303.]
      Why did privatisation get on to the Home Office agenda? The answer is simple. It did so because of the failure of the Government's policies, which has shown itself in one simple way—the overcrowding of our prison system. The number of prisoners escalated from 43,326 in 1983 to an alarming 50,265 in 1987. The pressure was particularly bad in the remand sector, where unconvicted prisoners endured some of the most squalid conditions. It goes against any concept of justice that people who have not been proved guilty of an offence are kept in the worst cells and the worst prisons.
      The pressure grew for something to be done. We know that the Government's first reaction was the frantic building of more prisons. They expanded the prison building programme so much that they faced a bill of £1 billion on top of the running costs of £1 billion a year. That was a massive investment. If anyone was throwing money at a problem, it was the Government.
      People could see that that was not working. It was suggested that we should go down the American route, but who wants to do that? Hon. Members who served on the Committee with me will be sick to death of my citing the American experience. In America, there were 3·33 million people in prison in 1974 and 1·3 million in 1990. I do not often correct the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon.
      710
      Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but by a slip of the tongue he got it wrong earlier. He said that we had the worst prison record in the industrialised world. While we may have the worst record of imprisonment per head of population in the Council of Europe countries, including Turkey, our record is not worse than that of the United States, and I hope that it never will be. The increase in the supply of prisoners there seems never-ending, and that looms large in the minds of the Government and the people of the United States.
      The other suggestion which came out of the woodwork, or out of the Adam Smith Institute, was privatisation of the prisons—if not all of them, at least the worst affected, which are those on the remand side. Instead of building more prisons, the Government should have done something about reducing the prison population. They should not now, belatedly, be returning to the idea of privatisation. It is a delicious irony that these proposals for expanding the role of the private sector in the prison system should come at a time when the prison population is beginning to fall.
      The Labour party's recommendations on reducing the prison population have at last been heeded. The Government have finally listened to the experts. I am not saying that the Labour party has great expertise, but it was prepared to listen to the experts before writing its policies on penal reform.
      If this is the wrong policy at the wrong time, why are the Government pursuing it? Part of the answer must be that they are giving in to commercial interests. It is no secret that certain construction companies close to the Conservative party stand to gain from the privatisation of prisons. That such interests are influential in determining penal policy is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice. I am old enough to remember former United States President Eisenhower warning against the military-industrial complex. I should be warning against the penal-industrial complex, whose participants have more to gain from an increase in the prison population than from a reduction.
      7.45 pm
      There will be pressure for more prisoners. As I said in Committee, that is not a conspiracy theory—it is an inevitable law of economics. People do not go into such business to make a loss. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke of privatisation. He will know that the guarding of a defence institution by a private security company is all very well with a top-rate company, but without regulation of the industry, chief constables worry about the quality of the firms at the lower end of the market. Competitive tendering forces Government bodies to accept the lowest or almost the lowest of tenders. The senior executive of a leading private security company said to me only in October, "Do you know, Mr. Sheerman, that in Scotland a defence establishment is being guarded by a private security company which pays its employees £1 an hour?" The hon. Gentleman will know about Scotland.
      This is not a conspiracy theory. The economics of the situation, in an unregulated industry, will lead to the cowboys taking over not only in the rest of the private security world, but in private prisons. The Government have no plans to regulate security industry, and without such regulation, nothing that the Government say can

      711
      reassure the Opposition that there will not be a sector of the prison system run by the cowboy element of the private security industry.
      Behind these measures is a black hole into which the Government's policy will fall—their unwillingness to regulate the private security industry. I know that I am anticipating a later debate, but the two are closely linked. In Committee, Conservative Members bizarrely told us that prisons built by private developers were unutterably better in design, construction and siting than those built by the public sector, which the Government argued were badly designed and planned buildings, with poorly executed work. Yet if a private contract is given to a firm to run as well as build the prison, they argue, standards suddenly and miraculously improve. That is a devastating comment on our building and development industry. I happen to know many people who work in the building industry, and that is a slur on their work. It is a misunderstanding of the public and private sectors.
      Good, well-designed prisons can be built and run by the public sector. The Woolf report says just that. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that we had a good prison service and a rotten system, he hit the nail squarely on the head. That is the problem that the Government cannot address. Can the private sector build prisons and operate them well and cheaply?
      It is interesting that all the rhetoric about effectiveness that we heard in the early days of this debate seems to have disappeared. The financial memorandum states:
      "Competitive tendering for the operation of remand centres is not expected to have a significant financial implication."
      The American experience leads to the same conclusion. Even Charles Logan, a member of President Reagan's commission on privatisation, in the best researched pro-privatisation book on the American scene, agrees that it is still unproven that private prisons will cost any less than prisons in the public sector.
      It was noticeable and alarming that, in discussions with Deloitte Haskins and Sells, private-sector operators claimed that savings could be made by reducing staffing levels through design innovation and technology. Groups such as Inquest are greatly worried about the prospect of turning remand prisons into electronic boxes. The appalling number of suicides in recent years shows that remand prisoners need close attention and contact with more and better qualified staff, not more electronic wizardry and gadgetry. All the research shows that human contact is most important in preventing suicide. That was not mentioned in today's statement and the questions and answers following it. Even since the ghastly events at Strangeways, more people there have committed suicide.
      I do not want to bore the House with the American experience, but despite the vast prison population there, there are no private federal prisons and there are only 9,000 adult offenders in privately run gaols. Therefore, the experience of the United States is extremely limited.
      Mr. Chris Butler: As I understand the figures, 25 per cent. of prisoners are federally delivered up to the private sector, and there is now a total of 20,000 beds in the private sector in the United States.
      Mr. Sheerman: I think we split down the middle. My latest figures, which I got from the House of Commons Library only this week, show that there are no federal prisoners in the private sector, but that the numbers in the
      712
      private sector may have risen. The hon. Gentleman may have more up-to-date figures than I do, but between 9,000 and 20,000 is a tiny percentage of the 1·3 million prisoners.
      In Committee, the Minister rested her case on the Australian experience. I have checked that, and found, that the position is certainly not as impressive as she would have us believe. The experiment has been going on for only a short time. The number of prisoners in the one prison that is in the private sector is small. Most published material relates to Borallon prison in Queensland, but the claims made about its success are premature. Most experts in our penal lobby argue that it is far too early to make claims about improved recidivist rates, that the prison was operational only in January 1990 and that to make such a claim borders on the irresponsible. It is much too early to speak about cost-effectiveness. Borallon is still running in, and for much of the time has been running at under capacity. The Australian and American experiences do not lead to the conclusions that Ministers seem to suggest.
      There is a problem in accepting the Government's arguments when one considers the moral aspect. It is easy to get entrapped by the Government's logic and to argue on their terms. In that way, we are reduced to talking about pounds and pence—the cost of imprisonment. On the day the Woolf report is brought to the attention of the House, we should think about philosophy and underlying values. At the forefront of our argument are our strong moral objections to the use of private prisons.
      The deprivation of liberty is the strongest punishment that can be imposed on an individual. Once a court has decided on a prison sentence, the state should be directly responsible for that prisoner throughout his or her sentence. The prospect of private companies deriving commercial gain from imprisonment is grossly distasteful. Private companies, motivated by the requirements to maintain profit margins and share dividends, will compromise inmate care and welfare provision. The Government are taking a cavalier attitude to that and to public safety.
      We are gravely concerned that control and security may be seriously compromised by undertrained and inexperienced employees of the private-sector industry. We doubt that our security guards will have the ability to handle the difficult and potentially violent situations that can arise.
      I do not have to expand on my case on a day like today. The report about Strangeways and the evil disturbances in our prisons last April leads any fair-minded Member and citizen to the conclusion contained in paragraph 1.4 of the Woolf report. It pays tribute to the men and women involved for their professionalism and care. Indeed, Woolf specifically says that two further questions should have been asked when he was given his terms of reference. The question should$not have been why the riots took place, so much as why they had not taken place years ago, given the state of our prisons. What is the conclusion? In paragraph 4, he concludes that, if it were not for the dedicated, highly trained professionalism of those who run our prisons—the governors and prison officers—the riots would have occurred earlier and would have been more widespread.
      When the Minister replies, will she tell us what guarantee she has about the level of care, training and expertise that will be found in the most difficult area of the penal system, the remand system, or any other sector when the penal system comes under private unregulated industry? Remand prisoners are highly volatile. Many have never been in prison before and are terrified and even

      713
      psychologically disturbed by the experience. Many will be found innocent. What guarantees does she have about the provision in private remand or any other private sector of the penal system?
      I have made the main points of my case.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: At length.
      Mr. Sheerman: This is an important debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not normally take so long on Report, but, as he knows, one or two of these matters go to the heart of the Bill.
      There is an inherent misconception in the proposal, which may intrigue the hon. Member for Southend, East. I know that that hon. Gentleman likes the free market, which is lauded by the Tories, but it is a strange marketplace that has one customer only and where those at the sharp end in receipt of service are not at liberty to change their supplier. Such a lack of choice does not represent a free market, more a captive one.
      8 pm
      We want to flush out the Government's true intentions, because the Minister was less than clear in Committee. On 31 January she said:
      "The Government cannot accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale … because we would need to come to terms with the full implication of what he has to say".
      Later on, however, there was a more positive reaction from the Minister:
      "I am willing to consider the amendments".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1991; c. 577, 601.]
      It must have been those differing comments that totally confused the press, because when I spoke to some of them in the following two days, half of them thought that the right hon. Lady had warmed to the amendment, while the other half said that she had thrown it out without much thought. I should like the right hon. Lady to come clean about her views.
      A much clearer view of the Government's intentions is provided in the magazine New Builder. It is interesting to look occasionally at the less customary sources of information. We all read The Economist, the New Statements and Society, and such publications, but it is not often that one reads New Builder. In the 7 February edition, we learned that the hon. Member for Rydedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) had told the journal that:
      "they had convinced the new Home Secretary and the Prisons Minister, Angela Rumbold, that the proposals for privately built and managed prisons in the Criminal Justice Bill did not go far enough".
      We also learned that, on the proposals to end the remand of juveniles to prison department establishments and secure more accommodation, the Government were considering the proposal that councils should contract private consortiums to undertaken those projects on a design, build and manage basis. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
      We also discovered from that magazine that the hon. Member for Westminster, North is even more enterprising when it comes to city-centre prisons. He considers that Brixton, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs represent an endless source of land for the property market. He said that those prisons occupy sites of considerable value and that
      714
      "the Home Office is warming to the idea of giving the sites to private developers in return from them building smaller, privately managed remand centres nearer the crown Courts".
      Obviously New Builder has some insight into what is going on in the Tory party and its relationship with the building industry. It makes absolutely fascinating reading.
      Conservatives may argue that, although the Woolf report concludes that the prison system is in an appalling state and in need of change, the Labour party is being a dog in the manger because it will not go along with the Tory party's insights into how to change such dreadful conditions in our prisons. Such an argument is a red herring. The Woolf report should lead to a radical improvement of the present prison system, not the development of a few brand new prestigious private prisons.
      We believe that the state of the penal system is too important to deal with on party political grounds. The future penal system should be agreed upon by the two parties and the Woolf report should be agreed upon by the two parties, and the Woolf report should be the basis of that agreement. If the Conservative Government could bury their ideological hang-up on privatisation of prisons, they would discover that there was enormous support for policies that would radicalise our present penal system.
      It is important to note the poisonous effect that the obsession with privatisation will have on the men and women working in the prison service. Such privatisation is opposed by everyone who works in the prison service—certainly the prison governors do not want it. In that connection, how on earth could Ministers introduce an amendment in January concerning what the press described as "flying governors"? No matter how the wonderful private remand centres or prisons are extolled by the Government, it seems that, when a riot takes place, they cannot cope.
      The Government suddenly introduced an amendment to provide that a governor from a proper prison in the public sector would be flown in at a moment's notice to deal with any crisis. That is bad enough in itself, but the Government did not consult the governors about that proposal. I understand that the Minister had met representatives from the Prison Governors Association only a couple of days before, but no mention was made then of that proposal. That is a strange way in which to deal with the professionals who run our prison service.
      The right hon. Lady should think again before she opens the door a bit more to the amendment tabled by the right of her party. On reflection, she will appreciate that it represents a dangerous path. Such a privatisation measure could sink the one opportunity we have to catch up with the civilised part of the world on penal policy.
      Mr. Bruce George: I should not think that many hon. Members or people outside believe that our prison service is anything other than a national disgrace. It is not right simply to point the finger of guilt at the present Government, as the deficiencies within the prison system did not start in 1979—the blame must go back many generations.
      In the past 11 years, the Government have had opportunities to make the necessary reforms, and some things have been done that I applaud wholeheartedly. It is regrettable, however, that in typically British fashion it took a crisis in the prison service—the riots—to precipitate the encyclopaedic report that was presented to us today.

      715
      Just because matters are in crisis does not mean that we should move to an aberrant system that is shifting, however incrementally, to a system of private prisons. I believe that Woolf and Tumim have pointed the way and that, if the Government, and future Governments, are prepared to devote resources and provide the political support, we shall have a prison system about which we need not feel a deep sense of shame. If Ministers were asked to take foreign visitors round many of our city-centre prisons, built in the previous century, I am sure that they would refuse to do so. No person of any compassion could feel anything but acute embarrassment at visiting many of our city-centre prisons.
      The state of such prisons is no criticism of prison officers, who cannot like to work in such an environment. At least prisoners are in and out in a set time in most cases, but prison officers must spend much of their careers in that dreadful environment and in many senses the effect is degenerative. In passing, I pay a tremendous tribute to the men and women of the prison service who have been engaged to work for many years in adverse surroundings.
      We all know that there is much scope for improving the system, but we tend to forget that there is much in the prison service that is experimental and innovative and about which we need not feel the same sense of humiliation. We need to build on those positive elements of the prison service. Lord Justice Woolf has pointed the way in which Governments must go. I cannot accept, however, that even a limited experiment with privatisation is worthy of anything other than condemnation. If by some misfortune the Government accept the amendment, more than a simple experiment would be involved, because that experiment will lead to a mushrooming of private prisons. That cannot be endorsed.
      I support many reforms in the prison service and many of the alternatives to prison, but there will always be a place for prisons. I do not belong to the utopian wing of my party, which believes that if only we provided good opportunities for people they would not commit crimes, and that we must create alternatives to prison for almost all who would otherwise go there. That is nonsense. There are people who need punishment, which should be paralleled by a reforming element. So let us reform, but let us not indulge in this nonsense.
      I should have thought that the privatisation mania to which we have been subjected had run its course. Perhaps the Government have been tempted to support plans for more privatisation than we had expected to prove to some of their supporters outside, who may be feeling depressed about how the Government have evolved in the past couple of months, that there is still a strong ideological commitment to privatisation and to some of the dottier ideas of the past 10 years. Without wanting to insult friends in the academic world, I must point out that such ideas should have been confined to professors' offices, but now, because of the peculiarities of the political system, they have been enshrined in legislation of which we are suffering the consequences.
      I am not opposed to all forms of privatisation. As I said in Committee, I would not fight to the death to return some privatised companies to the private sector. Some concerns will inevitably remain outside public control, but I cannot concede that privatising the prisons is anything more than an idea supported by the more dotty Members
      716
      of the House. I had hoped that privatisation of the prisons was just the death rattle of the ideological passions of the 1980s, but perhaps my assessment was too optimistic.
      Privatisation of the prisons can come in many guises: in the form of contracting out services such as catering or cleaning; and in the form of allowing contractors to build, manage and operate. There is no single model for privatisation.
      Why are private prisons to be inflicted on us? They may be a consequence of the ideologically impoverished seeking inspiration from other societies that have gone through the process and picking up their ideas, running them across the Atlantic and trying to translate them, in their feeble way, into British clones of the American experiment. Many of the perceptions of the success of the privatised prisons in the United States have been based on simplistic analyses. The Select Committee on Home Affairs investigated private prisons, and the aspects of its report that relate to private prisons contain more of the ethos of the political pamphlet than the ring of a serious report by a Select Committee.
      8.15 pm
      The report by Mr. Young for the Adam Smith Institute was also based on limited research experience. Extrapolating on the basis of limited experience, the report judged, wrongly, that the experiment had been successsful in the United States.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said earlier, the experiment in the United States has been too limited. An excellent book recently published by Ryan and Ward on private prisons in America and on whether the American experience has any relevance to us states:
      "The American experience of privatising the delivery of punishment overall in the United States is both uneven and limited. It is uneven in that it is more prevalent in the south … more common in the juvenile sector than in adult corrections; more likely to apply to service delivery than to ownership and/or management."
      So that research has shown that the experiment in the United States has been limited, and we should not draw the wrong conclusions from it. The Adam Smith Institute, which is closely connected with the Heritage Foundation in the United States, has praised a system that is undeserving of eulogy. Mr. Young could see no evil in the private sector and was unwilling to see Governments do anything in the prison sector free from his criticism.
      The Select Committee that visited the United States produced a political report. By that I do not mean to criticise its Chairman, who has not attempted to hide his close connection with the private security industry. He has been an able proponent of the private prison system, and his predecessor as Chairman—this is also a matter of public record—now serves as chairman of an organisation that is considering building private prisons.
      The Home Affairs Select Committee did not perform a good service for the House. I am appalled by the idea of a prison industry, by the idea of the state delegating responsibility for punishment to the private sector and by the idea of prisons being run for profit. I fear that a private prison system will be largely unaccountable. It will not deliver the nirvana that some of its proponents argue it will—places where the food is great, where warders run around not dressed in uniform and where wonderful recreational facilities abound: in short, places not unlike Hi-de-hi holiday camps. That is all an illusion.

      717
      On the basis of my experience of the private security industry, I must conclude that the private sector is ill equipped to manage, run and staff prisons. I shall discuss later why I believe that. Bidding for contracts can mean only that good companies will be driven down to the lower level of their competitors. Staff salaries will suffer, as will staff training. We shall not begin to reach the stage recommended by Lord Justice Woolf. He has argued that, although the standard of training in the United Kingdom could be described as reasonable, we must aim for higher standards. The Netherlands may provide us with a model.
      Our standards of training are already light years ahead of those in almost every private security company. If the private sector cannot remotely match even the present system of training, which Woolf has argued is inadequate, I cannot believe that it will have either the resources or the enthusiasm to emulate the standards that he requires of prison officers in both sectors.
      I hoped that the Bill would merely introduce a narrow experiment and that, when that experiment had been properly evaluated, it would be allowed to die the death. I fear, however, that the Government have other things in mind; and I deplore that.
      Mr. Maclennan: The case in principle against the clause has already been adequately deployed, and I do not propose to continue with that line of argument. I wish the Minister to explain how she expects the clause and the amendment—with which she is rumoured to be sympathetic—to fit in with the Woolf recommendations for remand prisons.
      In my view, both the clause and the amendment are inconsistent with the purposes of the Woolf report; moreover, they make the achievement of the ends recommended in that report—after careful consideration—much more difficult. According to Woolf,
      "the inquiry has concentrated particularly on the position of remand prisoners. This is because they represent a significant proportion of the prison population, and because they unjustly suffer some of the worst conditions in the prison system … To emphasise the importance of these matters, the inquiry recommends that there should be a separate statement of purpose setting out the prison service's responsibilities relating to remand prisoners. This statement of purpose should reflect the principle that remand prisoners should normally be accommodated, treated and managed separately from convicted prisoners."
      That, surely, is a profoundly important recommendation. How does the clause fit in with it? It seems to want to establish a bifurcation in the custodial treatment of remand prisoners. At least the original clause did not intend all of them to be subject to privately contracted arrangements; but, if the Woolf recommendations apply to the prison service, they will presumably have to apply, and be monitored, in the private sector, which strikes me as a bizarre administrative approach.
      Woolf went on to consider the problems of remand prisoners in much more detail. On page 250, in paragraph 10.79, he wrote:
      "The many initiatives which have been taken in recent years to try to tackle the problem created by the size of the remand population have on the whole been successful. Indeed the scale of their success suggests that there were, and almost certainly still are, a substantial number of people remanded in custody who should not be in prison … The problems created by the unnecessary remands need to be tackled from a number of different directions. Each involves co-operation between the Courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service and the Prison Service."
      718
      If the clause and the amendment are passed, a fifth wheel will be added. Similar co-operation will be needed with the private sector, involving a separate series of relationships. I believe that that will confound the present administrative confusion, in the part of the prison system in which the greatest problems are widely recognised to exist.
      We must judge the appropriateness of the clause and the amendment by whether the tests recommended by Woolf are more or less likely to be met. On page 327, in paragraph 12.309, Woolf suggests
      "Accredited Standards for remand centres".
      That will mean a set of separate tests and monitoring arrangements to find out whether the privatised service is operating effectively, which cannot make sense.
      The whole report reflects considerable disquiet about the management of the remand population. Woolf diagnoses that as stemming in part from the assumptions that are made about the degree of security that all remand prisoners require. The privatisation proposal strikes me as, at best, irrelevant to the solution of the problems described so cogently by Woolf, and, at worst, likely to make the task of eliminating them much more difficult.
      As well as recommending the implementation of certain broad principles, Woolf suggested that helpful guidance would be provided by the proposals in the Prison Reform Trust's publication about regimes for remand prisoners, by Dr. Sylvia Casale and Miss Joyce Plotnikov. Will that helpful guidance be required of those who run the private sector? It is difficult to explain or justify a bifurcation of the system in a sector that has had so many problems, leading to—admittedly—so much unfortunate practice.
      It is not as though the Government were proposing a "pure" privatisation. Those who run the prisons will have to operate according to rules and regulations established by Government; the controller, for instance, will be a Crown servant. This is an example of gesture politics on the part of Home Office Ministers who are trying to placate the holders of an uninformed view within their own party, which carries no support outside that party and which the Government would be wise to reject. They now have the perfect reason not to act; indeed, if they accept the amendment, it will be seen as a pre-emption of the Woolf recommendations—as, indeed, thumbing their nose at recommendations, and a pretty contemptuous approach to some serious suggestions. That would be highly unfortunate.
      8.30 pm
      Mrs. Rumbold: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) moved several amendments to clause 66 that would have been rather more dramatic in their effect than amendment No. 116. Perhaps he listened carefully to the debate and to the comments of our hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who said that, if we want to extend clause 66, which applies only to remand prisoners, we should proceed cautiously and step by step to ensure that contracting out is not only acceptable to the Home Secretary and the Government but an effective means of managing prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that, if the Government accepted the amendment, that was the way in which he would expect us to proceed.
      The Wolds is the only remand prison that can be contracted out under clause 66, which the Government are

      719
      minded to enact. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) expressed concern about private prisons being a dreadful failure or an aberration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is saying only that, if it is proved that they can be effectively managed by the private sector, the Government, having carefully considered the implications and ramifications, might extend that proposal to, for example, a young offenders' institution. That is a reasonable proposition for the House to consider.
      We have had a long and considered debate. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made the Labour party's position clear. It opposes the private sector being involved in the running of prisons. I understand that, but I do not necessarily agree with the ideological point that the prison service can be run only by the public sector. I do not accept that only the public sector should be responsible for the management of prisons.
      The debate is being held on the day when the Wolff recommendations became public. I reaffirm—I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield accepts this in the spirit in which he made his comments to me—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, and indeed the whole Government, are committed to improving the prison service. I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the Government have tried to improve the prison service simply "by throwing money at it", although since 1979 much public sector money has been spent on improving prison service establishments, which were in a distressful state.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, only three years ago, our prisons were full and it was not possible to refurbish them. We therefore opened eight new prisons, and will open a further 12 in the next few years. Coupled with the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today to end slopping out by 1994, that will contribute to achieving the important target of reforming the prison regime. If a prisoner must slop out four times a day, it does not help to establish a good regime under which he can undergo a sensible education, work and training programme.
      Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady has delicately avoided giving a firm commitment to implement the Woolf recommendations, which is what Labour Members have been waiting to hear.
      Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has already received an answer. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures to implement immediately a major part of the Woolf recommendations. As the report was published only today, he reasonably said that many of its recommendations will be considered for inclusion in a White Paper. No Government, of whatever political persuasion, could have done more than my right hon. Friend.
      I must confess to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that New Builder is not my early morning or bed-time reading. Perhaps I should ensure that I read it as well as Punch, the Spectator and The Economist. I must also confess that I do not yet read the New Statesman and Society.
      Mr. Sheerman: What about Christopher Robin?
      Mrs. Rumbold: As all my hon. Friends know, Christopher Robin is a favourite of mine.
      720
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that clause 66 and the amendments would be incompatible with the Woolf recommendations. I do not share that view. I do not see why private remand centres, which perhaps would use different methods but would have the same aims, could not operate successfully. They would operate under contract to the Home Office. I do not see why co-operation with other parts of the criminal justice system would be more difficult under these proposals.
      Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Woolf recommendation to segregate remand prisoners within the prison regime was the basis of the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee on private sector involvement in the remand system?
      Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is correct. The Government are taking the first step in considering contracting out a remand prison. We believe that this opportunity will not easily arise again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, this is a chink of light. If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service. The House should accept the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 174.

      Division No. 79]

      [8.41 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amos, Alan

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Atkinson, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cormack, Patrick

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Couchman, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Curry, David

      Bellingham, Henry

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

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Day, Stephen

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Devlin, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dicks, Terry

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bowis, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Favell, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bright, Graham

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forman, Nigel

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Franks, Cecil

      Burns, Simon

      Freeman, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      French, Douglas

      Butterfill, John

      Gale, Roger

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gill, Christopher

      721

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Moss, Malcolm

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mudd, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Gregory, Conal

      Nelson, Anthony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Ground, Patrick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hannam, John

      Page, Richard

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

      Patnick, Irvine

      Harris, David

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pawsey, James

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hayes, Jerry

      Portillo, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Price, Sir David

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Redwood, John

      Hill, James

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Rost, Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Irvine, Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jack, Michael

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shelton, Sir William

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Sims, Roger

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Key, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, James

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Squire, Robin

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knapman, Roger

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stern, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thornton, Malcolm

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Madel, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mans, Keith

      Tredinnick, David

      Maples, John

      Trippier, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Viggers, Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mates, Michael

      Walden, George

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ward, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moate, Roger

      Watts, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Wells, Bowen

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wheeler, Sir John

      722

      Whitney, Ray

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Yeo, Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Wood, Timothy

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Allen, Graham

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Alton, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Doug

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Home Robertson, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Battle, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Bellotti, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Benton, Joseph

      Ingram, Adam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Blunkett, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Boyes, Roland

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bradley, Keith

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lambie, David

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Caborn, Richard

      Leighton, Ron

      Callaghan, Jim

      Litherland, Robert

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAllion, John

      Cartwright, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McFall, John

      Clay, Bob

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clelland, David

      McKelvey, William

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McLeish, Henry

      Cohen, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      McMaster, Gordon

      Crowther, Stan

      McWilliam, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marek, Dr John

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Meacher, Michael

      Dobson, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fisher, Mark

      Mullin, Chris

      Flynn, Paul

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Brien, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Hara, Edward

      Galbraith, Sam

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Patchett, Terry

      George, Bruce

      Pendry, Tom

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Gordon, Mildred

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Gould, Bryan

      Radice, Giles

      Graham, Thomas

      Randall, Stuart

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Redmond, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Richardson, Jo

      Grocott, Bruce

      Robertson, George

      723

      Rogers, Allan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thompson, Jack (Wansback)

      Rooney, Terence

      Turner, Dennis

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vaz, Keith

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Short, Clare

      Wilson, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 117, in page 43, line 16, leave out
      'to which this section applies'
      and insert
      'which—

      (a) is established after the commencement of this section; and

      (b) is for the confinement of remand prisoners, that is to say, persons charged with offences who are remanded in or committed to custody pending their trial, or persons committed to custody on their conviction who have not been sentenced for their offences;'.—[Mr. John Greenway.]

      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 43, line 19 at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State shall prescribe in any contract entered into under subsection (2) above standards which shall include standards with respect to—

      (a) space per person, air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space, window space and time per day spent in cells;

      (b) bathing facilities and frequency of opportunities for bathing;

      (c) sanitary facilities and inmates' access to sanitation;

      (d) supply of clothing;

      (e) provision of meals;

      (f) medical care;

      (g) inmates' access to work, training, education, association, exercise and physical education;

      (h) facilities for visits and inmates' contact with families;

      (i) inmates' access to lawyers;

      (j) provision of information concering bail and legal aid;

      (k) inmates' access to advice and assistance from probation officers and social workers; and

      (l) facilities for religious observance, to which the contracted out prison shall conform.'.

      Amendment No. 91 is in line with our general views in opposition to prison privatisation that we outlined in the debate on the previous amendment. It deals with the serious problem of providing minimum standards. It would require privately managed remand centres to meet specific minimum standards laid down in the contract. That sounds as though I want to have my cake and eat it, but the amendment is intended to improve something that we hate, loathe and detest.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have made it clear that we fundamentally oppose the privatisation of the management of prisons, which is wrong in principle and fraught with serious dangers in practice. If the Government proceed with the private management of one or more penal establishments, everything possible must be done to ensure that private contractors are held accountable for providing decent standards for prisoners.
      724
      The amendment is clear and no one can misunderstand our intentions. The case for setting standards of the kind set out in the amendment was made in the Green Paper, "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System", published in 1988. Paragraph 69 of that document states:
      "Operating a remand centre will make heavy demands on the management responsible, and it is important that the company is left in no doubt as to the essential requirements. Contracts will have to set clear and enforceable standards. In the present prison system there is no existing composite document which lays out comprehensively and in detail the requirements for a remand centre regime. One will therefore have to be developed for this purpose. In order to give scope for innovative solutions to problems, it will be important for standards to be defined so far as possible in terms of the results to be achieved, rather than the methods to be employed."
      I do not want to delay our proceedings, and I realise that the arguments are understood by the Minister and by all sections of the House. Minimum standards will be debated time and again as we return to the Woolf report and refine its message. Once we have had an opportunity to consider the 800 pages of the report at more leisure than we have had today, I am sure that we shall return to the subject of minimum standards in both public and private sectors.
      Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the position of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has once more emphasised his opposition to the proposal for privatisation within the prison service. Although he reiterated his concerns about the proposal, he none the less stated that, if the Government proceed with the proposal, it is important that there should be high standards which would be rigorously enforceable.
      For the sake of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I repeat the assurance given in March 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and
      Commonwealth Affairs, who was then Home Secretary:
      "Standards would be high and would be rigorously enforced."—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 278.]
      A contract would cover the issues set out so clearly in amendment No. 91. While I cannot list all the other things that will be set out in the contract, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all those matters and more will be covered. We shall not tell contractors how to do their job but shall set out clearly in the contract what we wish them to achieve in respect of good and safe care of the prisoners to protect the public as well as the prisoners.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister's response to the amendment show that she accepts for privatised remand prisons the recommendation made by Lord Justice Woolf that there should be accredited standards for prisons? If so, does she also accept it for the public, or will there be two different sets of standards?
      Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would recall, if he had been present this afternoon, that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented the Woolf report to the House, he said that he would reflect on that matter and deal with it in the White Paper to be issued later this year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that he is fully aware of that consultation process.
      I wish to reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the parts of the contract which deal with the matters under discussion will be made public. Confidentiality will apply only to those parts of any contract which, for

      725
      sensible, commercial reasons are too sensitive from a security point of view. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we have given satisfactory reassurances about the way in which contracts will be drawn up.
      Mr. Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9 pm
      Mr. George: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 43, line 19, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State shall only enter into contracts with persons under subsection (2) above if he is satisfied that persons employed by them are adequately trained and vetted.
      (2AA) The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines setting out the standards and qualifications of applicants for contracts under this section.'.
      My remarks will be brief because, first, I moved the amendment in Committee and, secondly, I have been leaned on.
      Those hon. Members who attended the Committee will know that I speak with some interest in the operation of the private security industry. I said earlier, that the concept of private prisons appals me. There is no point in being utopian and saying that there will be no private prisons, because the Bill will be enacted. At least there has been one experiment in the form of a privatised remand centre, on which we may expand.
      If we are to have privately run remand centres, it is incumbent on us to discuss the details of their staffing and management. I should prefer to have members of the current prison service operating in prisons, because they have had a lengthy training. They attend a training college near Wakefield, for which they are carefully selected—only one in 10 of those who apply are selected. On completion of the training course, they are closely supervised. These dedicated men and women have an esprit de corps based on a long tradition of public service in prisons. They require enormous experience and are trained and retrained.
      The Woolf report, however, did not consider that that was good enough. Referring to training, it argued, in paragraph 13.108:
      "For this reason, and because it could also improve the present state of morale in the Prison Service, we recommend that more attention be paid by the Prison Service to training. A greater commitment to training would also help to show that the Prison Service cares about its staff".
      The report then says that the Prison Officers Association extols the virtues of the Netherlands prison service and says:
      "There, staff had systematic training over the first five years of a prison officer's career, and advanced training between the third and fifth year of his service. This provides an indication of just what is possible."
      The report then mentions standards elsewhere and the skills that the prison officer is expected to acquire in the course of his or her service.
      The private sector will never be able to come within a million miles of the present system. The prospect of its even aspiring to achieve the higher standards laid down by the Woolf report is simply pie in the sky. With support and funding, the public sector could achieve those objectives, but the private sector is inherently incapable of delivering the quality of service that is required.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's argument can be further fortified by Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations on recruitment. The report states in paragraph 13.167:
      "The Inquiry accepts that it is to the advantage of the management of the Service as a whole for recruitment decisions to be made at Headquarters."
      Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I always prided myself on being a speed reader, but I have not yet absorbed all the report, nor am I likely to do so. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a speed reader, or perhaps he started from the back of the report and worked his way to the front—we expect that sort of thing from the hon. Gentleman.
      Training in the private security industry is farcical. I shall not bore the House with details, but for most companies in the private security industry, training does not exist. Those companies that make an effort may provide a day's training, and companies belonging to the British Security Industry Association are obliged to provide three days' training. However, that obligation is not met by many of the BSIA's members. There are some good, specialised security firms that lay on higher standards of training, but they are the exception. Training is expensive and if companies are in competition, they cannot win against another private security firm that does not attach great importance to training.
      The private sector will not try to attain the standards required, because the remand prisons' guards, operatives and security officers will require the same standard of expertise as exists in the prison service today. Will the Home Secretary lay down standards and insist on the private sector attaining those standards? The Home Secretary must be aware that it will be enormously expensive to achieve those standards, and if contracts are let, that must be built into the calculation. I fear that training is so inadequate that companies will fail to achieve any standard that might be set.
      The amendment also seeks to establish standards that would enable the private sector to recruit intelligently. That does not simply mean keeping out people with serious criminal records—the negative approach to recruitment. We want the private security industry to be a sufficiently attractive career with a suitable salary to attract the right calibre of men and women to serve in it. Remand prisons need high-calibre recruits. We do not want—as happens in other parts of the private sector security industry—to recruit from the bottom end of the market and impose on those recruits standards that they cannot achieve.
      I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the overwhelming majority of private security firms do not have vetting procedures. As I said in Committee, all that firms want to know is whether the body is warm and can start work the following day. New recruits are then measured up for uniforms and placed in a job the following day or, in many cases, the same day. Many firms do not even go through the pretence of checking references. Better companies have telephone communications systems that can trace back five years in an attempt to contact employers. They then try to trace back a further 15 years by writing to previous employers, but that takes weeks. It is an imperfect system that does not work.
      The Government say that they will adopt a system of certification that is better than the hit-and-miss system operated by many firms in the industry at present. It is still

      727
      to some extent, although less than in the past, a nudge, nudge, wink, wink approach whereby crime prevention officers are approached or former police officers are on the payroll to give some sign whether the person being hired has a criminal record. That is an appalling way to proceed. What I dislike about the system of certification is that it will be bestowed upon a handful of companies and the rest will have to worry for themselves. We need a system in which all private security firms have access to necessary information, with appropriate safeguards. The Government do not support that view.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation in Northern Ireland is comparable to the one that he suggests in which security firms must be authorised by local authorities?
      Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The one precedent in the United Kingdom is in Northern Ireland, and it approaches the licensing system that I have been trying to achieve without success. There are precedents in most other countries. It is a matter of some amusement, although it is probably more likely a matter of considerable anger—a combination of motives—why the Government refuse to do what should be done, and establish a statutory licensing authority to vet applicants and companies and lay down minimum standards. As I have said many times, there is anxiety that there are too many people with serious criminal records in the private security industry. In a leaked report two years ago, chief police officers clearly pointed out that problem.
      The private security industry has low status and low pay and it is held in low esteem by the police and the public. Its staff turnover is enormous. Lucky companies have a 100 per cent. turnover a year and the bad ones have a 450 per cent. or 500 per cent. turnover a year. Men and women work for £2 an hour, taking home £70 to £80 a week, and they may work 70, 80 or even more hours for the privilege of taking home barely a living wage.
      The companies that apply for contracts within that sector will not be the poor companies; they will be the better ones. However, the deficiencies inherent in the weaker, smaller and imperfect companies also tar the better companies. There are not two systems of private security in this country, there is one system, and it is bad and needs to be improved. There is the complacent view that the rubbish firms will not apply for contracts in private prisons and that it will be blue riband companies, building consortia and security firms. Who knows, an American company closely linked to Kentucky Fried Chicken may apply. Who knows what companies are likely to apply? I cannot accept that such companies are different from the rest. The whole system stinks, and it needs to be altered.
      The Government are pursuing an important experiment. At least they can partially rescue the system. Ministers have given me some assurances, and I am grateful for them. I hope that, if the system is introduced, certain safeguards will be built in. I do not think that the Government have great confidence in what they propose, because of the many safeguards that they are building into the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield referred to the "flying governor". The Home Office does not have much confidence in the private sector. That is why a Home Office governor can be parachuted in to pick
      728
      up the pieces should the system fail. There will be the commissariat system in which the Home Office employee will parallel the private sector manager.
      There are many other safeguards. Therefore, I am not quite as alarmed as I was when I initially read the legislation. The system could be partially retrieved if only the Home Office were prepared to lay down rigorous standards. I hope that the lessons that the Government learn from this legislation will eventually lead them to introduce a full-blown system of private security regulation. My criticism is not necessarily of the private security industry but of the system within which it is permitted to operate.
      Mr. Sheerman: It is always a pleasure to follow my old friend the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He is such an acknowledged expert in this matter that it is with a sense of humility that I support his amendment. We know of his vast knowledge of the matter, but I should like to make one small correction. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was worried that his only legacy to posterity in Committee would be the coming of the phrase "the flying governnor". He wanted it put on record that it was not "the flying warden".
      9.15 pm
      The amendment attempts to introduce regulation of the private security industry, and that is why we support it. It is an immensely important amendment. I should describe the Governments' lack of recommendations as a black hole. I give credit where credit is due—the two Ministers of State did a pretty good job on the brief, but on this matter, they failed to convince. One could see them hovering around, worried about falling into the black hole when we pressed them to say how they would control the private security contractors if there were no standards or regulations.
      They had no answers to the questions put by the great authority on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South; they had no answers when we pressed them from the Front Bench. The Government have no way of controlling what would happen if the private sector were allowed a free rein even in the small element of the private remand sector, let alone in an expanded sector.
      Last week, I received a telephone call from a reporter who had got hold of a story—I do not know whether it is true—that the Ministry of Defence was talking about arming the private security people who guard our defence installations. We must make absolutely sure that our defence establishments are secure from terrorist and other attacks. If the Ministry of Defence, with all its security, cannot get it right and ensure that standards are high and that a level of competence is delivered by the contractor at the agreed price, what hope is there that the Home Office will get it right in relation to imprisonment? There are very real problems.
      This is an immensely important issue. The Opposition fundamentally oppose the introduction of privatised prisons, but if they are to be introduced, far more effective mechanisms are needed to regulate the private security industry. Clause 71 and schedule 8 are not sufficient protection.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that much of the private security industry has an appalling record. That does not apply to all companies; they are not all tarred with the same brush. There are some

      729
      acceptable and reputable companies, but the industry is huge, employing 150,000 or perhaps 200,000 people—twice as many as the regular police force. There is a notorious lack of vetting of staff, derisory training of employees and appalling levels of pay. There are no minimum standards.
      However, in a competitive free-for-all, the bad companies affect the good. Bad companies with non-existent training and the lowest levels of pay put in the lowest bids, which undercut those of their more reputable counterparts. To obtain contracts, good companies are forced to reduce standards. How will Ministers stop shoddy companies replacing better companies?
      I remember an occasion in Committee when we were discussing our experience in local government. I gave the example of being forced by a particular piece of legislation—I cannot remember which Government introduced it—to start taking competitive tenders for all our housing contracts. What happened? Who saved money? Time and time again, we walked into a trap of accepting the lowest tender from a fringe builder who went bankrupt halfway through the job. We had to get someone else in to finish the work. That is what happens with competitive tendering.
      One has only to look at the experience of the Ministry of Defence to see the dangers involved. For years, the Opposition have argued that the private security industry must be properly regulated, and that self-regulation will not do. We need a system allowing for minimum standards of training and, in the case of prisoner custody officers, we would expect that training to be very rigorous. We need a proper vetting system and adequate wages. One does not get quality unless one pays a decent wage.
      On 31 January, when we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister said:
      "I am interested in all the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall seriously consider what he said and try to ensure that we have the right standards and protection to deal with private sector contractors. We shall examine the circumstances carefully so as to protect the interests of the public and of the Government and Home Secretary of the day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 31 January 1991, c. 611.]
      What conclusions has the Minister reached? What titbits has she hidden away? If she does not accept the amendment, the Bill will go to the other place with no provision for control over who runs the private sector side of the operation. This is a dangerous part of the Bill. Without control, private security has no future in which any of us can have confidence.
      Mrs. Rumbold: I was sad to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) say that he could not give us one of his long and discursive speeches about private security. I enjoyed them very much in Committee, and I was looking forward to another episode.
      Mr. Michael: An epic.
      Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, an epic. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters, to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred, and I understand the concerns that he expressed in arguing for the amendment.
      We discussed the matter at considerable length in Committee. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield and I have said before, clause 71 and schedule 8 provide for the certification of a prisoner custody officer. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have to be satisfied that a prospective prisoner custody officer is a fit and proper
      730
      person to perform the relevant functions and—most important—that he has been trained to an approved standard before he gains such a certificate. That is an exceedingly important measure, which I wholeheartedly support.
      In addition, there is another provision to ensure proper protection for those who undertake such important tasks: the contractors themselves will use selection procedures. If, at any point, it turns out that a prison custody officer is not a fit and proper person, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to revoke a certificate. If an unsuitable person should, by any remote chance, slip through the net, that will reflect upon the contractor who employed him or her.
      It has always been clearly understood that, if any aspect of the prison custody service is contracted out, accountability in respect of public safety and for the way in which prisoners are treated will in no way be diminished. As I said several times in Committee, that is very important. The responsibility will continue to be discharged, albeit in a different way. Accountability remains, simply because the Home Secretary could not afford to place the prisoners in the custody of people who are not totally respectable and reliable.
      There is no question of the Home Secretary allowing less than satisfactory firms to be responsible for employing those who will carry out prisoner custody tasks. The companies that we have come across up to now have all been major long-established companies with high reputations. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would wish to deal with any companies other than those with the highest qualifications.
      Mr. Sheerman: That is exactly the point that I was addressing. The first issue is how we can decide on the standards and the criteria. What is the mechanism and the structure? Who will authenticate the process and ensure that certification works and delivers? Secondly, does not the right hon. Lady realise that, once we are involved in competitive tenderiing, it will no longer be the reputable, the nice or the quality people whose names will come across her desk, because once she starts to exclude people on competitive tendering grounds, she will find that she has involved both herself and the Government in a civil court action that will open the door to all the other people—rightly, in civil legal terms—and she will be forced to take all comers?
      Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Huddersfield is recalling his local government days, when we contracted out repairs on council houses. That was one of the first areas of local government work in which the private sector became involved. Of course, everyone who wished to had a perfect right to tender for those contracts and nobody is saying that that would not necessarily be the case here. However, what happened in local government—I am confident that this is what will happen in this case, building on the experience of local government—is that all firms will be looked at carefully to ensure that they comply with all the requirements.
      As was the case with local government, the cheapest firm is not necessarily always chosen now. Some local authorities, however, did not take responsibility for ensuring that their ratepayers got the best value for money. When considering firms for private sector contracts, it was, and is, important to ensure that the best services—the

      731
      most cost-effective and the most efficient services—were chosen and they were not necessarily always from the cheapest contractors.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) well knows what happened in local government, because he too has experience in that world, and he knows perfectly well that it is important to choose quality as well as the lowest price.
      Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between mending windows for a local authority and looking after prisoners? Does she accept that there is a contradiction between the Government's determination to regulate and to authorise security firms in Northern Ireland and their determination not to do so for the rest of the United Kingdom?
      Mrs. Rumbold: Of course contracting out local government services is different. Nevertheless, local government serves a useful purpose when drawing an analogy with the kind of contracts that we are looking at for the prison service, and I prefer to keep to that analogy for the time being.
      On the issue of public safety and the way in which prisoners are treated, the Home Secretary will also need to be satisfied that the contractors have the necessary financial backing and management resources to take on such contracts. Large sums of money will be involved. We are talking about multi-million-pound contracts, which will certainly be beyond the reach of any of the so-called "fly-by-night" firms about which the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Walsall, South have great concern.
      Having reconsidered these arguments and aired them yet again—we discussed them thoroughly in Committee, when I undertook to ascertain whether we could go further than we had at that stage to meet hon. Members' concerns—I hope that what I have said reaffirms that we have done that. I can give an undertaking that we shall be very open about the standards required of contractors, especially in respect of training, about which I know full well the hon. Member for Walsall, South is particularly concerned. too regard training as an important issue. When we come to consider what should be required for certification and the work that the contractors must carry out, we shall certainly give very careful consideration to what Woolf has to say.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. George: Despite the assurances that have been given, I feel that this amendment should be put to the vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 263.

      Division No. 80]

      [9.30 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Bellotti, David

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Alton, David

      Benton, Joseph

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Blunkett, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Boyes, Roland

      Ashton, Joe

      Bradley, Keith

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Beggs, Roy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Bell, Stuart

      Canavan, Dennis

      732

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McAllion, John

      Cartwright, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Clay, Bob

      McFall, John

      Clelland, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McKelvey, William

      Cohen, Harry

      McLeish, Henry

      Corbett, Robin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McMaster, Gordon

      Crowther, Stan

      McWilliam, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martlew, Eric

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Maxton, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Mullin, Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      Nellist, Dave

      Flynn, Paul

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      O'Hara, Edward

      Foster, Derek

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fyfe, Maria

      Parry, Robert

      Galbraith, Sam

      Patchett, Terry

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Pendry, Tom

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      George, Bruce

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Radice, Giles

      Gordon, Mildred

      Randall, Stuart

      Gould, Bryan

      Redmond, Martin

      Graham, Thomas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Reid, Dr John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Richardson, Jo

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Robertson, George

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rogers, Allan

      Hardy, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Rooney, Terence

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Henderson, Doug

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hinchliffe, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Home Robertson, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Hood, Jimmy

      Short, Clare

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Howells, Geraint

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

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

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Illsley, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ingram, Adam

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Turner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Charles

      Vaz, Keith

      Lambie, David

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Leighton, Ron

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Litherland, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Wilson, Brian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Winnick, David

      733

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Favell, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Allason, Rupert

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Amess, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Amos, Alan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashby, David

      French, Douglas

      Atkinson, David

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Batiste, Spencer

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gregory, Conal

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ground, Patrick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hague, William

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hannam, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

      Bowis, John

      Harris, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bright, Graham

      Hayes, Jerry

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Burns, Simon

      Hill, James

      Butler, Chris

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butterfill, John

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Cash, William

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Irvine, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Chope, Christopher

      Jack, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Cormack, Patrick

      Key, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Kilfedder, James

      Curry, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knapman, Roger

      Day, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knox, David

      Dicks, Terry

      Latham, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dover, Den

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      McCrindle, Sir Robert

      Fallon, Michael

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      734

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Maclean, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shersby, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Madel, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Matins, Humfrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfleld)

      Mans, Keith

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Maples, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marlow, Tony

      Squire, Robin

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stevens, Lewis

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedllng)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Sumberg, David

      Moate, Roger

      Summerson, Hugo

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Needham, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Trippier, David

      Norris, Steve

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Viggers, Peter

      Page, Richard

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Portillo, Michael

      Ward, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Price, Sir David

      Watts, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Wells, Bowen

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Redwood, John

      Whitney, Ray

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rost, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

      Yeo, Tim

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Shelton, Sir William

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
      '(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (2) above either—

      (a) paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph; or

      (b) paragraph (b) and the said word "and" or

      (c) the words from "which", in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b).

      (5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 67

      OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS
      Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 43, line 35, at end insert
      ('; and (c) a monitor, who shall be a crown servant, appointed by the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 105, in page 43, line 41. after 'director', insert 'or monitor'.
      No. 106, in page 44, line 5, leave out 'controller' and insert 'monitor'.
      Mr. Randall: The purpose of this amendment is simple. We are concerned about the position of the controller as defined in the Bill. We understand that the controller is to exercise disciplinary power at the same time as he is to report to the Secretary of State on the running and administration of the prison. Although we are happy that a Crown servant, the controller, rather than the private director, will exercise disciplinary powers, we believe that he should not at the same time report to the Secretary of State on the running and administration of the system. In reality, he would be reporting on himself, since the exercise of disciplinary powers is integral to the running of the prison.
      9.45 pm
      The amendment separates the two functions by introducing a monitor who is responsible for reporting to the Secretary of State on the day-to-day running of the prison, including the activities of the controller, who is simply there to exercise his disciplinary powers—no more, no less. We believe that such a separation of functions represents the appropriate way in which to proceed. It is wrong in principle for the controller to report, in part on his own activities.
      Mrs. Rumbold: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I am a little surprised at his argument for splitting the controller's duties, because I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman believed that having a controller in the private sector represented an additional responsibility that did not exist in the public sector. I am therefore surprised to learn that he now proposes that we should have not only two people, a director and a controller, but a third person. I am not convinced of the logic of that argument.
      I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but his suggestion for splitting responsibilities between the controller and a monitor is rather superfluous. His amendment is unnecessary and I have little sympathy for it.
      The amendment does not add anything to the responsibilities of a controller, who I believe is the adequate person to monitor the work of a private sector prison in co-operation with the director, but with direct responsibility to the Home Secretary. I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. Randall: I listened with interest to what the Minister said about what we consider to be a dilemma in the reporting structure, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 76

      CASH LIMITS FOR PROBATION SERVICES
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 50, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
      The amendment would delete paragraph (a), which amends the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That paragraph removes the obligation to provide "sufficient probation officers" and in its place it substitutes the words,
      "such number of probation officers as may be agreed between them and the responsible authority to be a sufficient number of such officers".
      If the Bill goes through as it stands, it will require the probation committee and the local authority to come to an agreement on the number of probation officers needed——
      Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we all have difficulty following the order of amendments when dealing with such a technical——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say. I have just been told that the hon. Gentleman's amendment was accepted. I was going to put it at the end of this debate, but since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter now, I shall put the amendment formally with my apologies.

    Clause 74

      INTERPRETATION OF PART IV
      Amendment made: No. 119, in page 47, leave out line 8.—[Mr. John Greenway]
      Mr. Michael: The Minister appears to have been consumed by the confusion and was not listening, so I shall start again.
      The amendment is intended to straighten out an anomaly in the Bill, in which we find the curious suggestion by the Government that words in the 1973 Act which show a need to have sufficient probation officers in an area should be substituted by a requirement for a probation committee to agree with the local authority the number of officers required in an area. That is nonsense.
      I approach the matter with some neutrality, having been chairman of a local authority finance committee and a member of a probation committee—so I can claim to be well informed. My information leads me to suggest that the Bill is nonsense as it stands.
      Under the new regime that we have, partly as a result of the Bill and partly as a result of developments initiated by the Minister and his colleagues, the Home Office will decide the finances needed within a formula for a particular probation area. The Home Office will offer advice on the numbers required. The Home Office will determine 80 per cent. of the finances in any event, and the local authority will have to fall into line. In any case, the local authority discusses the budget with the probation committee year by year, and will continue to do so.
      The Central Council of Probation Committees understood, following discussions with the Home Office Ministers and officials, that, once cash limits were set, as they will be in future, on probation committee budgets, committees will have the discretion to determine their own priorities and resource needs, including staffing, within the budget and subject to all the other restrictions. For instance, there will be regular Home Office inspections,

      737
      including a study of staffing levels in probation committees, which are accountable in Home Office statistics and in their own annual reports.
      Our amendment seeks to delete the requirement in paragraph (a) because it is at best meaningless and at worst a recipe for pointless disagreement between probation committees and local authorities. It appears to give some control to local authorities, but in fact it does no such thing. If the Minister wants to delete the words "sufficient probation officers" from the 1973 Act, let him admit as much and do. I have had private conversations and I have corresponded with the Minister on these matters, and I am a little disappointed that the provision is still in the Bill at this stage. I had hoped that the Minister would have moved a Government amendment by now to dispose of the problem.
      In Committee, the Minister suggested that subsection 76(2) did not change the role of local authorities or of committees, but that is precisely what it does and why it is necessary to remove it from the Bill. It is a drafting mistake, and even at this late stage I urge the Minister to listen to the voice of reason as well to the voice of experience in the form of the Central Council of Probation Committees and other bodies. He has made a mistake; he should accept that he has and tidy up the Bill.
      Sir Anthony Durant: I have had some difficulty finding a point at which to intervene today, and I am slightly off course in the debate on this amendment—except in so far as it relates to probation officers.
      Probation officers in my constituency have been to see me, anxious about their role in the probation service. They believe that the Bill may damage their role with their clients. They fear that they will be allocated the judicial role of punishment rather than the remedial role of helping their clients.
      I hope that the Minister will reassure me that probation officers' vital role will be carefully considered and that, when dealing with clients, they will not be allocated a role strictly to do with punishment at the expense of the remedial side of their work.
      Mr. John Patten: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) that the Government envisage a careful expansion in the probation service until the financial year 1993–94. The autumn statement provides a useful background for the amendment. It proposes the introduction of more than 800 new probation officers over the next three years—the biggest single injection of officers of both sexes that has ever occurred—as well as a 25 per cent. increase in overall expenditure on the probation service in the years up to 1993–94, taking inflation into account: the biggest single cash increase that the service has ever received.
      We want the probation service to change its present role. We want it to develop its considerable skills in confronting offending behaviour and making offenders face up to what they have done, so that they do not do it again. That means exercising control as well as care—caring authority, as it were. Vigorous, forward-looking bodies such as the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and that valuable organisation, the National Association of Senior Probation Officers, are already gearing themselves up to the task.
      738
      My hon. Friend's Reading constituency faces a challenge. I value the work of the probation service in Berkshire: under its excellent chief probation officer, it is one of the best probation services in the country. It will have formidable opportunity to do what probation officers do best—stop people offending again.
      I have invested a good deal of time in arguing, in Committee and in the corridors, with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) about clause 76 and the issue that he has raised tonight. I pay tribute to the knowledge that he has acquired, both as the former chairman of a council finance committee and as one who has served in other parts of the criminal justice system. The trouble is that he and I cannot agree on the meaning of words. Sometimes, however much we respect someone else's judgment, we must agree to disagree. The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in a lengthy correspondence: our word processors have been at it hammer and tongs over the past three or four weeks. I intend to place in the Library the full correspondence, complete with marginalia, so that posterity can judge which of us was right.
      The intention of clause 76(2) is not to usurp the role of committees in deciding how many probation officers are needed, but simply to allow local authorities to object to expenditure on them, and to allow either the committee or the local authority, in default of agreement, to seek a determination from the Secretary of State. The subsection is necessary to prevent the cash limit from becoming de facto a precept on the paying authority. Thus expenditure on probation officers will be brought into line with existing arrangements relating to other items of current expenditure.
      Local authorities are already able to object to many other items of expenditure in committees' estimates—on a range of non-probation officer staff issues, on accommodation and on equipment. There seems to be no good reason for continuing to single out expenditure on probation officers for special treatment when they now add up to only about half the staff in the probation service.
      I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill. Clause 76 is extremely well drafted, as are all the rest. My interpretation is absolutely clear, and the amendment—well-meaning though it is—would not improve it in any way.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) made a valid point. I am glad that he used the excuse of the amendment to mention the work of probation officers. From my knowledge of their work, I agree with his comments. He led the Minister astray a little into commenting on the probation service in general, but who can blame him for that? The problem is simple—the Minister is wrong.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Michael: For one moment, I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, had intervened on my suggestion that the Minister was wrong. I realise now that you were not questioning that.
      The Minister is wrong to say that paragraph (a) is necessary to ensure that the cash limit does not become a

      739
      precept. A local authority must agree the budget with the probation committee. It is not, as the Minister suggested, a question of agreeing expenditure on probation officers, which is already provided for in the agreement on the budget. The paragraph says that the local authority must agree the number of people that the probation committee will employ.
      I am afraid that the Minister, despite the considerable good will that he has shown my efforts to persuade him that he is wrong, has got it wrong yet again. I am delighted that he is to place our correspondence in the Library so that the great British public and hon. Members will be able to read both sides of our exchanges and realise that amendment No. 92 is correct. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, so that the other place can agree it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 77

      INFORMATION AS TO FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DECISIONS
      Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 10, after 'of, insert '—(a)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 101 and 102.
      Mr. Patten: I remind the House that, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) moved new clause 4 last Wednesday, which was defeated on a Division, I said that the Government were bent on tabling their own amendments to achieve the same ends, to introduce matters of gender and race and to make clear the importance of avoiding discrimination in the criminal justice system. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Sheerman: We welcome the Government's decision to make this little concession on race. Amendment No. 101 allows for ethnic monitoring not only of court decisions but of persons engaged in the administration of justice.
      Amendment No. 101 refers to sex discrimination. We should recognise our important achievement in persuading the Government to act. We are having our cake and eating it again, but we are pleased that we pushed them sufficiently to make them go away and think about it.
      It is important, however, to stress that the amendment goes only a little way towards achieving our objective. The anti-discrimination statement which we unsuccessfully tried to incorporate in the Bill is important. In the debate last week, the Minister generously agreed to meet a deputation, including hon. Members from both sides of the House, and to discuss over a cup of tea——
      Mr. Patten: The kettle is always boiling.
      Mr. Sheerman: If the kettle is always boiling, will the Minister see a deputation from the black lobby, who are concerned to put their case on the need for a declaratory clause?
      Mr. Patten: I often see representatives of the ethnic minority groups and have done so throughout my years at the Home Office. I have seen the black lawyers and others, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring another group as part of an all-party delegation to discuss the issues., the kettle is on the hob.
      Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the willingness that he has shown. Several people are involved, such as those associated with the Church and those associated with the law. It would not be an unmanageable delegation. Those people have asked me to put this case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week the community and race relations unit of the British Council of Churches pointed out the need for a declaratory clause and stressed the importance of a statutory commitment in making the position plain to minority communities.
      Mr. Patten: I have written to that body to discuss these issues directly, and have been in communication by correspondence with several organisations.
      Mr. Sheerman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Now that he has accepted the point about a deputation coming for tea to talk about the importance of this issue, I believe that it will not be too late in another place to put that provision into the Bill. We debated this matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not entirely persuaded, but he went halfway. This declaration would reaffirm some positive elements in people's views on what the criminal justice system is like.
      The Minister knows that what people feel about the criminal justice system is important. If I may draw a parallel with the fear of crime, it is important to affirm to people that the fear of crime is much greater than the reality. In the same way, we believe that it is important to affirm to ethnic minorities that the reality of racism in the criminal justice system is not so great as it is believed by their communities to be. The declaratory aspect of the Bill would go a long way to reassuring them. I accept that the Minister will keep a relatively open mind on that issue.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 101, in page 51, line 12, at end insert
      'or
      (b) facilitating the avoidance by such persons of discrimination against any person on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Clause 84

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 22, in page 52, line 33, leave out '20(1)'.
      No. 21, in page 52, line 34, at end insert
      '; and section 20(1A) above and, in so far as relating to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, Schedule 11 to this Act extend to Scotland only.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    New Schedule

      PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTION 15 OF 1965 ACT
      Variation and discharge of supervision orders.
      15.—(1) If while a supervision order is in force in respect of a supervised person it appears to a relevant court, on the application of the supervisor or the supervised person, that it is appropriate to make an order under this subsection, the court may make an order discharging the supervision order or varying it—

      (a) by cancelling any requirement included in it in pursuance of section 12, 12A, 12AA, 12B or 12C or section 18(2)(b) of this Act; or

      (b) by inserting in it (either in addition to or in substitution for any of its provisions) any provision

      741
      which could have been included in the order if the court had then had power to make it and were exercising the power.

      (2) The powers of variation conferred by subsection (1) above do not include power—

      (a) to insert in the supervision order, after the expiration of three months beginning with the date when the order was originally made, a requirement in pursuance of section 12B(1) of this Act, unless it is in substitution for such a requirement already in the order; or

      (b) to insert in the supervision order a requirement in pursuance of section 12A(3)(b) of this Act in respect of any day which falls outside the period of three months beginning with the date when the order was originally made.

      (3) If while a supervision order made under section 7(7) of this Act is in force in respect of a person it is proved to the satisfaction of a relevant court, on the application of the supervisor, that the supervised person has failed to comply with any requirement included in the supervision order in pursuance of section 12, 12A, 12AA, 12C or 18(2)(b) of this Act, the court—

      (a) whether or not it also makes an order under subsection (1) above, may order him to pay a fine of an amount not exceeding £1,000 or subject to section 16A(1) of this Act, may make an attendance centre order in respect of him; or

      (b) in the case of a person who has attained the age of eighteen, may (if it also discharges the supervision order) make an order imposing on him any punishment, other than a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, which it could have imposed on him if it—

      (i) had then had power to try him for the offence in consequence of which the supervision order was made; and

      (ii) had convicted him in the exercise of that power.

      (4) If while a supervision order is in force in respect of a person it is proved to the court under subsection (3) above that the supervised person has failed to comply with any requirement included in the supervision order in pursuance of section 12A(3)(a) of this Act directing the supervised person to participate in specified activities, the court may, if it also discharges the supervision order, make an order imposing on him any sentence which it could have imposed on him if it—

      (a) had then had power to try him for the offence in consequence of which the supervision order was made; and

      (b) had convicted him in the exercise of that power:

      (5) In a case falling within subsection (3)(b) or (4) above where the offence in question is of a kind which the court has no power to try, or has no power to try without appropriate consents, the sentence imposed by virtue of that provision—

      (a) shall not exceed that which any court having power to try such an offence could have imposed in respect of it, and

      (b) where the case falls within subsection (3)(b) above and the sentence is a fine, shall not in any event exceed £5,000; and

      (c) where the case falls within subsection (4) above, shall not in any event exceed a custodial sentence for a term of six months and a fine of £5,000.

      (6) A court may not make an order by virtue of subsection (4) above unless the court which made the supervision order made a statement under subsection (1) of sectiion 12D of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection a certificate under that section shall be evidence of the making of the statement to which it relates.
      (7) Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (fixing of certain fines by reference to units) shall apply—

      (a) for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, as if the failure to comply with the requirement were a summary offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and

      (b) for the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (4) above as if the failure to comply with the
      742
      requirement were a summary offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on that scale;
      and a fine imposed under any of those provisions shall be deemed for the purposes of any enactment to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.

      (8) In dealing with a supervised person under subsection (3) or (4) above, the court shall take into account the extent to which that person has complied with the requirements of the supervision order.
      (9) If a medical practitioner by whom or under whose direction a supervised person is being treated for his mental condition in pursuance of a requirement included in a supervision order by virtue of section 12B(1) of this Act is unwilling to continue to treat or direct the treatment of the supervised person or is of opinion—

      (a) that the treatment would be continued beyond the period specified in that behalf in the order; or

      (b) that the supervised person needs different treatment; or

      (c) that he is not susceptible to treatment; or

      (d) that he does not require further treatment,
      the practitioner shall make a report in writing to that effect to the supervisor.

      (10) On receiving a report under subsection (9) above, the supervisor shall refer it to a relevant court; and on such a reference, the court may make an order cancelling or varying the requirement.
      (11) In this section "relevant court" means—

      (a) in the case of a supervised person who has attained the age of eighteen, a youth court;

      (b) in the case of a supervised person who has attained the age, a magistrate's court other than a youth court.

      (12) The provisions of this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of section 16 of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS OF 1973 ACT
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 56, line 24, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 29 and insert—

      '(a) it has consulted a probation officer; and

      (b) it is satisfied that it is feasible to secure compliance with the requirement.'.

      No. 24, in page 56, line 46, leave out 'probationer' and insert 'offender'.
      No. 25, in page 57, line 42, at end insert—
      'Extension of requirements for sexual offenders
      '3A.—(1) If the court so directs in the case of an offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence—

      (a) sub-paragraphs (4) and (6) of paragraph 2 above; and

      (b) sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 above,
      shall each have effect as if for the reference to 60 days there were substituted a reference to such greater number of days as may be specified in the direction.

      (2) In this paragraph "sexual offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.".
      No. 26, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'section 10' and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 59, line 8, leave out from 'satisfied' to 'his' in line 9 and insert—

      '(a) that the offender is dependent on drugs or alcohol;

      (b) that his dependency caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and

      (c) that'.

      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 28 to 34.
      Mr. Patten: The amendments make two substantive changes to the provisions in schedule 1 on the treatment for drug and alcohol misuse. Those changes were recommended to me by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs criminal justice working group and were pressed on me powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Butler: The Government have proved themselves a listening Government in this respect, but I can give them only eight marks out of 10 for the amendment. In Standing Committee I referred to the use of "dependence" and "dependent". The Government seem to be trying to resolve the problem by including the definition of a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol within the definition of "dependence". I am not completely satisfied with that.
      In 1982 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended the use of the phrase "problem drug taker" rather than a range of terms including "drug dependent" or "drug addict". The advisory council on alcoholism recommended the use of the term "problem drinker".
      If we do not use the terms "problem drinker" or "problem drug taker", a person may be excluded from treatment who does not use drugs or alcohol habitually, but who may use them regularly. Similarly, some people use stimulants only at the weekends. They might not be taken within the definition of drug-dependent, but they may nevertheless have a drug-related problem. Legislation should take into account the accepted terminology recommended by the Government's advisory bodies, accepted by the Government and which has formed the basis for the provision of treatment in the community.
      With regard to amendment No. 32, I am not sure why sub-paragraph (5) appears in schedule 1. It is difficult to see what additional powers or authority it provides or why it is required. If there are additional grounds for its inclusion, it is riot clear why it should apply specifically to residential provision. There is an argument that it should apply to any change in the treatment requirement, not just to one type of treatment.
      I realise that I have made a technical point and I should be happy for my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond to me in writing. I suspect that my point about amendment No. 27 may be taken up in another place, failing satisfaction here.
      Mr. Tim Ralhbone: I do not wish to detain the House on what other hon. Members must consider to be a small point. However, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) said. My hon. Friend's point is extremely important in the context of drugs, which remain a tragic problem in our communities. The whole thrust of the Bill is absolutely in the right direction in advocating treatment rather than prison sentences. It is terribly important that we take to heart those points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South.
      I urge the Government to re-examine sub-paragraph (9) of amendment No. 32. That sub-paragraph seems to allow a combination order that would involve the imposition of a community service order for not less than 40 and not more than 100 hours in addition to the probation order, and a requirement to undertake treatment for problem drinking and drug taking.
      744
      The difficulty is that an individual with a drug problem has a very serious problem that requires treatment. The concentration should be on the supervision and completion of the specified treatment. There is a potential difficulty in undertaking a community service order because of that drug problem. For such an individual, finding appropriate service is likely to be extremely difficult.
      That does not mean that it is not inappropriate to impose a combination order but it would be difficult to expect a combination order to be imposed that also had a treatment requirement attached to it.
      Mr. Patten: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), whose long-standing interest in and authority on these issues we all respect. We set great store by the combination order. It may be difficult and challenging for the probation service, and the voluntary organisations that sometimes assist it—to which I pay tribute—to find suitable community service for the particularly chaotic characters who are sometimes addicted to drugs and alcohol or who, from time to time, go on drug and alcohol binges, but who are not clinically dependent.
      10.15 pm
      It is important that people who are not trading in hard or soft drugs, but who are the unfortunate and sad misusers of those substances, receive some form of sanction or punishment to replace a prison sentence. I do not want such people to go to prison, any more than others do. I want drug offenders who trade and traffic in drugs to go to prison for a long time, and have their assets and those of their families confiscated. We must find a way of pursuing those assets beyond the grave if the defendants inconveniently die before convictions are brought.
      It is critical for courts to have combination orders available to them to ensure that, when a sentence is handed down by the court, it means something to the offender and the community, and people do not effectively get away with breaking the law. I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes.
      As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) made some interesting points. He wondered why paragraph (7) was included in schedule 1. It provides for
      "the offender to receive part of his treatment as a resident patient in an institution or place notwithstanding that the institution or place is not one which could have been specified for that purpose in the probation order."
      I can clear that up now without having to go to the unnecessary lengths of writing letters, although the matter may be examined in another place. There may be places that would not normally be specified in a probation order, to which we would want such people to be directed for treatment specifically linked to their condition, either as a dependent person or someone who indulges in what are known in the trade as alcoholic binges or drug abuse.
      Amendments Nos. 27 and 33 enable a requirement to undergo treatment to be included in a probation order when an offender either is dependent on drugs or alcohol or has a tendency to misuse them. Everything does not hinge on dependency itself. That "either/or" policy must be linked to a contribution to the offence. At present, the criterion in schedule 1 refers simply to the defendant being dependent on drugs or alcohol. The amendments will deal

      745
      with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South. I welcome the chance to answer his questions.
      The amendments ensure that the requirement to undergo treatment is used only when the misuse of drugs or alcohol is directly related to the offence. That will cover cases where the person was not clinically dependent on alcohol—hence the debate over the use of "dependence"—but had indulged in a drinking binge that led to the commission of crime.
      I hope that the House will feel able to accept the amendments after my clarification of those points.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 59, line 14, leave out
      'duly qualified medical practitioner'
      and insert
      'person having the necessary qualifications or experience'.
      No. 29, in line 18, leave out 'patient'.
      No. 30, in line 20, leave out 'patient'.
      No. 31, in line 22, leave out
      'duly qualified medical practitioner'
      and insert
      'person having the necessary qualifications or experience'.
      No. 32, in line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
      '(4) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation order a requirement that the offender shall submit to treatment for his dependency on drugs or alcohol unless it is satisfied that arrangements have been made for the treatment intended to be specified in the order (including arrangements for the reception of the offender where he is to be required to submit to treatment as a resident).
      (5) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision shall carry out the supervision to such extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.
      (6) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency on drugs or alcohol in pursuance of a probation order is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

      (a) is not specified in the order; and

      (b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience. he may, with the consent of the offender, make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.

      (7) Such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) above may provide for the offender to receive part of his treatment as a resident in an institution or place notwithstanding that the institution or place is not one which could have been specified for that purpose in the probation order.
      (8) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) above are made for the treatment of an offender—

      (a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institution or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and

      (b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation order.

      (9) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in relation to a probation order made or amended by virtue of section 10 of this Act only so far as indicated in subsection (3) of that section, and except as provided by this paragraph or that section a court shall not include in a probation order a requirement that the offenderr shall submit to treatment for his dependency on drugs or alcohol.
      (10) In this paragraph the reference to the offender being dependent on drugs or alcohol includes a reference to his having a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol, and references to his dependency on drugs or alcohol shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Schedule 2

      ENFORCEMENT ETC. OF COMMUNITY ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 61, line 14, after 'him' insert—
      '(bb) where the relevant order is a probation order and the case is one to which section 17 of the 1982 Act applies, it may make an order under that section requiring him to attend at an attendance centre;'.
      No. 33, in page 65, line 7 at end insert—
      '(3) in this paragraph and paragraph 14 below, references to the offender's dependency on drugs or alcohol include reference to his propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol.'.
      No. 34, in line 9 after 'practitioner', insert 'or other person'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Schedule 3

      INCREASE OF CERTAIN MAXIMA
      Amendments made: No. 42, in page 66, line 36 leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 66.
      No. 43, in page 69, line 8, column 1 leave out '15(2A)' and insert '15(3)(a)'.
      No. 44, in page 69,line 8, column 2 leave out '£200' and insert £1,000'.
      No. 45, in Page 69, line 10, column 1 leave out '15(4) and (4B)' and insert '15(5)(b) and (c)'.
      No. 46, in page 69, line 10, column 2 leave out '£1,000 and'.
      No. 47, in page 70, line 3 leave out paragraph 1.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Schedule 5

      PROCEDURE IN LIEU OF COMMITTAL
      Amendment made: No. 120, in page 75, line 39. at end insert—
      'Avoidance of delay
      6A.—(1) Where a notice of transfer has been given in relation to any case—

      (a) the Crown Court before which the case is to be tried; and

      (b) any magistrates' court which exercises any functions under paragraphs 2 or 3 above or section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 in relation to the case,
      shall, in exercising any of its powers in relation to the case, have regard to the desirability of avoiding prejudice to the welfare of any relevant child witness that may be occasioned by unnecessary delay in bringing the case to trial.

      (2) In this paragraph "child" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act and "relevant child witness" means a child who will be called as a witness at the trial and who is alleged to be a person against whom the offence was committed or to have witnessed its commission.'.—[ Mr. John Patten. ]

    Schedule 9

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 48, in page 81, line 34, at end insert—
      '5A. In section 12D(1)(ii) of the 1969 Act (duty of court to state in certain cases that requirement is in place of custodial

      747
      sentence), paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect and for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
      "(c)the offence of which he has been convicted, or the combination of that offence and one other offence associated with it (within the meaning given by section 1(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991), was so serious that only a supervision order including such a requirement of a custodial sentence can be justified for the offence;".
      No. 121, in page 81, leave out lines 35 to 40.
      No. 50, in page 81, line 40, at end insert—

      '6A—(1) In subsection (4) of section 16 of that Act (provisions supplementary to section 15), for the words "a court" there shall be substituted the words "a youth court".

      (2) In subsection (6)(b) of that section, for the words "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (10)".

      (3) In subsection (10) of that section, for the words "paragraph (b) of subsection (2A) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (a) of subsection (3)".

      (6B).—(1) In subsection (1) of section 16A of that Act (application of sections 17 to 19 of the 1982 Act), for the words "section 15(2A)(b) and (4)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(3)(a).

      (2) In subsection (2) of that section, for the words "each of those paragraphs" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(3)(a) of this Act".'.

      No. 122, in page 83, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2) In paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule, after the words "any person" there shall be inserted the words
      "and to make reports on such matters".'.
      No. 51, in page 84, line 5, leave out 'In section 143(2)' and insert
      '.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 143'.
      No. 52, in page 84, line 6, leave out from 'provisions)', to end of line 7 and insert
      'paragraph (i) shall cease to have effect and after paragraph (o) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(p) section 48(2) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recognizance from parents or guardians);".'.
      No. 53, in page 84, line 7, at end insert—
      '(2) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(3) In subsection (1) above the 'relevant date' means—

      (a) the date of the coming into force of section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (increase of certain maxima); or

      (b) where the sums specified in a provision mentioned in subsection (2) above have been substituted by an order under subsection (1) above, the date of that order.".'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Schedule 10

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendment made: No. 54, in page 88, line 43 at end insert—
      'Attendance centre orders
      12A.—(1) Section 51(4) of this Act shall not apply in relation to pre-existing failures to attend in accordance with an attendance centre or pre-existing breaches of rules made under section 16(3) of the 1982 Act.
      (2) In this paragraph "pre-existing" means occurring or committed before the commencement of section 51(4) of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Schedule 11

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 55, in page 90, column 3 leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
      'In section 7, in subsection (7), the words "is found guilty of homicide" and paragraph (c), and subsection (7B) and (7C).'.
      No. 56, in page 90, line 11, column 3 at end insert—

      'Section 12D(1)(ii)(a).'.

      No. 123, in page 90, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

      'In section 12AA, subsections (7), (8) and (12).'

      No. 35, in page 90, line 54, at end insert—

      '1975 c. 21

      The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975

      In section 403, the proviso to subsection (4); and in subsection (6) the words "the proviso to subsection (4) of this section shall not apply, but".'.

      No. 57, in page 90, line 55, column 3, at end insert—
      'In Schedule 12, in the entry relating to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, paragraph 3.'.
      No. 58, in page 91, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 37(1A).'.

      No. 59, in page 91, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

      'Section 143(2)(i).'.

      No. 60, in page 91, line 19, column 3, at end insert
      'In section 18(6)(6), the words from the beginning to "residence".'.
      No. 61, in page 91, line 21, column 3, leave out 'Section 48(2).' and insert
      'In section 48, subsections (1)(c) and (2).'.
      No. 62, in page 91, line 27, column 3, after '23(a)', insert '25'.
      No. 63, in page 91, line 35, column 3, at end insert—

      'In Schedule 10, in Part II, the words "section 15(1)", "section 15(1) and (5) and" and "section 15(1)(a) and", and Part III.'.

      No. 64, in page 91, line 47, at end insert—

      '1989 c. 41.

      The Children Act 1989.

      In Schedule 12, paragraphs 21 and 24.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 102, in line 6, after 'financial,', insert 'and other'.—[ Mr. John Patten.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    10.20 pm
    Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Criminal Justice Bill has been improved in an excellent Committee stage to which hon. Members on both sides have contributed-I refer in particular to the official Opposition and the absent hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on behalf of the third parties. My right hon.

    749
    Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and I are very grateful to those who served on the Committee for the way in which they improved the Bill.
    I have only four points to make. First, the Bill has brought about a number of widely welcomed fundamental changes that have appealed to both sides of the House. For example, some radical and long overdue reforms to the parole system have been received with universal plaudits.
    Secondly, the Bill has also seen the breaking in to the world of penal affairs and the criminal justice system a greater measure of involvement by the private sector than this country has ever seen before. The measure of the help that the private sector can bring, alongside the voluntary sector to court security duties and in the running of private remand centres, will help this country and its penal system.
    Thirdly, the Bill marks a signal attempt on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the fight against crime, on this occasion looking not at trying to bolt the door after the penal or criminal horse has escaped but at trying to deal with issues at the root. That is why we have placed so much attention in the Bill on parental responsibility and on trying to improve parental responsibility to stop young people growing crooked and contributing to crime when they are older.
    At the same time, we have also wanted, through adopting the radical proposals of the Pigot committee in respect of child witnesses, to make quite sure that more guilty child abusers are brought to book and put in prison. Our changes in the parole system will mean that they will stay in prison for a considerably longer period than they have hitherto.
    Fourthly, the Bill has made the most radical changes to the sentencing framework of the criminal justice system that this century has seen. The ability that the Bill confers on sentencers to ensure that those who commit serious, violent and sexual crimes receive punishment commensurate with those crimes—normally meaning that they will be sentenced to considerably longer periods than they get now and that they will stay in gaol for considerably longer periods—is balanced by a similar series of provisions that enable much greater punishment in the community to occur so that minor, less serious and non-violent criminals are punished outside our prisons.
    It is peculiarly apposite that we are making these changes on the day on which Lord Justice Woolf's excellent report was published. That fundamental change to the sentencing structure will underlie developments in the criminal justice system, not just in this decade or in the first decade of the next century. It will be the fundamental underpinning of the criminal justice system well into the next century. No Bill is immortal, but this Bill will make a fundamental change to the way in which we do things. I commend it to the House.
    10.25 pm
    Mr. Sheerman: It has been a long process. This Bill was the major Bill in the Gracious Speech, and we spent many hours debating it in Committee. As the Minister said, this is an important day. The day on which Third Reading took place will be looked back on as a historic day for the criminal justice system.
    We discussed the hallmark of this Bill in Committee. When the Government went along with the independent
    750
    authorities that had been asked to consider particular problems—I refer to the Prior report and to the Carlisle report—and when they introduced into the Bill the distillation of such wisdom, they produced important and encouraging provisions.
    Thanks to a little help from the Opposition in tidying up bits and pieces here and there and in nudging the Government here and there, the Bill is not too bad in parts. However, other parts of the Bill are not based on such a sound pragmatic framework but are more concerned with the ideological claptrap of a Thatcherite society. Nowadays, even that term is out of date. We look with dismay at the provisions dealing with parental responsibility and privatisation.
    The Woolf report, which we discussed this afternoon, is uppermost in our minds. There is an inevitable contradiction between those provisions and what the Woolf report said, which we believe is the basis for a bright future for the criminal justice system—certainly the penal side of the system. Historians will look back on this day as the day on which there was a possibility of change in our penal system. Unfortunately, that change will not occur because of the Third Reading of this Bill. People will remember this as the day of the Woolf report and not the day of Third Reading.
    For those of us who wanted a more thorough reform of our penal system, it has been a sad day. The Government have prevented us at every twist and turn from debating and amending the Bill. First, they deliberately constrained the debate by giving the Bill its long title, because they knew that the Woolf report was on its way. To some extent, we believe that the Government have delayed the Woolf report coming to the House because they did not want the embarrassment of it arriving in time to allow a real opportunity to amend the Bill here.
    What is wrong with the Bill is that it missed that opportunity. There was even pettiness last Wednesday on the first day of Report, when we were arguing for simple measures to get people out of prison, which is what we thought the Bill was about—and those measures are in Woolf. We must get out of prison those people who should not and need not be there, such as the mentally ill. We tabled an amendment in Committee and last Wednesday on Report to try to get out of the penal system the 20 per cent. of mentally ill people who should never have been placed in it. We tabled a simple amendment to ensure that a pyschiatric report would be available to a court when it was thought necessary.
    Another issue on which we feel bitter is the imprisonment of fine defaulters. Opposition Members want to get away from the Dickensian world in which debtors are sent to prison—17,000 fine defaulters are sent to prison each year. They should not be clogging the system. That is against any supportable system of justice.
    Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have attempted to criticise constructively those parts of the Bill that we support, while making quite clear our principled objections to the Bill's objectionable and doctrinaire proposals. We have attempted to improve the Bill with a range of new suggestions that would be of great benefit to the criminal justice system. We have succeeded in making the Government think again on several proposals.
    I do not want to crow, but I shall list one or two. The definition of "serious harm" in clauses 1 and 2 has been greatly improved. The Government have at least started to

    751
    see the importance of statutory obligations to tackle racism. They have improved on their initial blunder with regard to clause 25 and homosexual offences. But the Government have still not got those issues right, and we hope that there is still time to move. We shall be pressing for further changes in the other place.
    We have succeeded also in persuading the Government to get rid of the five-day rule. There have been constructive changes to the section of the Pigot proposals to include, for example, child witnesses within the Bill's protections. The Government have got rid of the daft proposal to allow parents of 16-year-olds living at home and attending full-time education to be bound over. We can claim that all those are some minor successes that have been achieved not only by opposition, but by the fact that we have taken the Bill seriously and tried constructively to aid the Government when appropriate.
    We shall continue to push these and many other issues in another place. In addition to the issues that I have already raised, we shall press the Government to accept our new clause to divert the mentally ill from prison. The treatment of the mentally ill is a blot on our present system. I hope that, in the light of the Woolf inquiry, the Government will come to see the wisdom of our proposals. We hope, too, that the Government, in the light of Woolf, will warm to our proposals to limit the number of fine defaulters who are committed to prison. We anticipate that, in another place, our new clauses to ensure that this country complies with the European Court of Human Rights' ruling on life-sentence prisoners and on the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder will meet with more favour. We shall continue to argue our case for a sentencing council, which we believe is at the heart of where the Government have got the Bill wrong.
    We have objected to many of the proposals in the Bill from the outset. We regard curfews and electronic monitoring as dangerous gimmicks, which research has shown to be a farce. Then there are the proposals on fining and binding over parents. Glibly described as attempts to shore up parental responsibility, they do nothing of the sort. Populist and simplistic, they seem designed to tip the more vulnerable families in our community into breakdown.
    Finally, there are the privatisation proposals. No Bill is complete without some reference to this dogmatic obsession. The Government are determined to plough on and, indeed extend this idea, despite the appalling record of the private security industry, and despite all the damage that it is doing to relationships with key personnel in the prison system. Privatisation is poisoning the atmosphere in the prison service, at a time when a responsible Government would ensure that they were pulling everyone behind them as they moved to the implementation of Woolf. Relationships with prison governors are at an all-time low, and relationships with prison officers are not good.
    I hope that the Government will think again and allow some of the key proposals of the Woolf report to be incorporated in the Bill. When the Home Secretary introduced the Woolf report—all 800 pages of it, which we had had about an hour and a half to absorb—we pleaded with the Government, even at this late stage, to think again, with a view to incorporating some of that radically new philosophy into the Bill during its passage through another place.
    752
    Again I ask the Home Secretary, who is now on the Front Bench, and his team really to think through the issue. As we said earlier today, we see Woolf as a change of philosophy. If the Government accept it, they have markedly changed their stance. Let me refer to a point about which I pressed the Home Secretary. If the Government really accept Woolf, the simplistic approaches—building more prisons, and privatising a sector of the service—have been recognised for what they are. These were always false paths.
    This Bill is good in parts, and it has been improved in parts. However, two important parts of it will do major damage to the criminal justice system and will be resented by magistrates and by those who work in the prison service. What we need is an all-party, more moderate approach. We hear that, these days, it is fashionable in Government circles to talk about a centrist role in policy terms.
    At this late stage I ask the Home Secretary to come back to the centre of the political spectrum in terms of prison reform. If he draws back from the ideological realms of privatisation, the Opposition will extend the hand of co-operation. Let us together look at Woolf and decide not to take an ideological attitude to criminal justice and penal reform, but to adopt a pragmatic approach based on the facts. If the Government do that, the prospects for criminal justice in this country will be much brighter.
    10.37 pm
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I welcome this Bill in all its parts. It is a moderate but very dramatic and positive step forward, and I endorse what the Minister said in his moving Third Reading.
    For the first time, provision is being made for a community sentence specifically capable of being used to reduce the use of imprisonment as a punishment for those who have alcohol or drug problems. Of all sentences of imprisonment for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 52 per cent. are for periods of less than 12 months, and 36 per cent. are for periods of less than six months. It is likely that the majority of people serving these short sentences are themselves drug users.
    Within prison, although there have been efforts to provide a care system involving the prison medical service and the probation service, prisoners serving very short terms are rarely seen by either service. For the population of drug users, imprisonment is a temporary disruption of their drug use. They are ideal candidates for non-custodial sentences. So are those drug users convicted of non-drug offences, whose offending is linked to their drug use.
    I hope that, even at this late stage, my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will think again about the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and myself, and will consider whether those minor changes could be incorporated in the final version of the Bill, so that it might do a 100 per cent. job, as opposed to a 99·9 per cent. job, of improving the system in the way in which the Home Secretary and this House want to see it improved.
    10.39 pm
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) will forgive me if I do not follow his points, although, like the Minister, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long interest in this matter.
    I am extremely sorry that I was in a meeting preparing for a Standing Committee tomorrow morning and thus unable to be in the Chamber when the House considered the provision allowing children to give evidence on video. As the Minister knows, like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), I have been interested in this matter for some time, and I am pleased that the Government have taken the view that they have, because a need clearly existed. However, it would be inappropriate for me merely to compliment the Government on one aspect of the Bill when other parts of it do not meet with my approval.
    Before I entered the House in 1970, I was a school-master—probably an old-fashioned one, because I took the view that young people should behave themselves. I would not dissent if the Government took a similar view. However, if the Minister wants to reduce the level of crime, irresponsibility and disorder among young people, the Bill will not serve that purpose. They should ensure greater hope and more opportunities for young people.
    I am delighted by the success of the South Yorkshire police, although I find it preposterous that the Home Office should tell us to employ 18 more police officers next year when the Department of the Environment then pursues policies which will cause us to lose 200. We have managed to secure a high level of detection, despite the fact that the vast majority of young people leaving school in my constituency see no economic opportunity of any real worth. I am amazed that the crime rate is not higher, in my area and in the country as a whole. The position will not improve until the Government pursue other policies, as well as those on criminal justice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) urged the Government to adopt a more pragmatic position and to reject the dogma of privatisation in the penal system. Like my hon. Friend, I am a practising politician, so I should like the Government to continue on this course because the vast majority of people will regard privatisation of our prison service as preposterous. I wonder how many of them will be talking about a convicts' co-operative. I wonder how many people, next time one of the millionaire fiddlers in the City of London is sent down for fraud, will ask whether he has gone into a private, five-star institution, perhaps financed by the Government under the business expansion scheme and thus offered at a 40 per cent. discount. [ Laughter.]
    Conservative Members may laugh, but I remember taking part in the first debate on one of the early privatisations—that of Amersham International. Conservative Members said that the assets of the company were in the hands of the people who worked in the company. When I suggested that, if that was so, they
    754
    should establish a co-operative, they mocked the suggestion—largely because they knew that they would make an enormous profit within 24 hours of the company being privatised. I wonder how many will laugh when they realise that the people now recognise that privatisation has become preposterous. Privatising prisons is a move that the vast majority of people, who retain a grasp of common sense, will regard as ridiculous.
    10.44 pm
    Mrs. Llin Golding: I am certain that the Minister did not expect me to let this Third Reading opportunity go by without mentioning the evidence of children and the Pigot report.
    I am pleased with the progress that we have made on children giving evidence, but we have not yet got it right. I should like to put down a few markers. I cannot understand why, if a written transcript of a sick child's statement made before a magistrate is admissible in evidence under sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Minister could not agree to add the words "and a video tape", especially as he considers that the provision already exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I shall keep asking him that question until I am satisfied with his answer, which is far from the case now.
    Children should have a right to a say on the use of screens and video links in our courts. I am not convinced that they will have that protection unless the right is written into the Bill. Our courts do not yet have sufficient understanding of the needs of young children to allow them to have such protection. Cases involving this are frequently brought to me, and I shall describe just one.
    Some months ago, a lady telephoned me about her young daughter aged eight, who was giving evidence in Inverness high court. Scotland is supposed to be progressive about the needs of children. She said that, in court, the lawyers and the judge sat in their wigs and gowns and that her child spoke quietly about the disgusting things that the accused man did to her. She was expected to give all the details. There was no microphone. The lawyers shouted at her and the judge told her to speak up. The more they shouted at her, the quieter she spoke. In the end, the case was thrown out because the judge said that, as the court could not hear the evidence, it could not try the case. That is not justice for children. The courts have still to understand that young children must have special consideration because of the strain they are under.
    I shall return, as will many of my hon. Friends here and in another place, to the case for a pre-trial hearing. I believe strongly that our court rooms are no places for small children. Until we remove their ordeal of having to appear in court, we will not have the law right. We have some way to go before the Government accept the full impact of the Pigot report. Many of my hon. Friends and I will continue to press for that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Construction Industry Training Board
10.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
The proposals before the House seek authority for the construction industry training board to raise a levy on the employers in the building and civil engineering industries, to finance the running costs of the board and to run a grants scheme. The proposals are the first to be submitted by the board since it was reconstituted last year. They are different from those submitted in previous years in that the levy is now based solely on a payroll basis.
The basis of the proposals is a levy of 0·25 per cent. on the payroll of employers in the industry, and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Employers with a payroll of £45,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. The proposals have the support of the employers, as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the full support of the board.
The House will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain this statutory training board. In principle, we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general, the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not a good one.
We have, however, retained the statutory principle in the case of this industry because of strong support from employers. The construction industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry, the mobile nature of its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontract and self-employed labour produce a unique set of circumstances in those sectors of the construction industry.
Let me emphasise that we consulted widely with the industry about the CITB. There was a widespread and strongly held view that the CITB should be retained but that its management should be streamlined and reformed. In addition, the employers in the industry argued strongly for the retention of a statutory levy because of the largely self-employed nature of the labour force.
We were therefore persuaded to give the industry a chance to reform its training board, to remodel it as an employer-led body, and to alter the basis of levy collection. The revised basis of the levy proposals before the House today is one indication that reform is happening. I am happy to say that other reforms, such as the internal restructuring of the board's management and improvement in financial control, are also taking place. I expect shortly to see the Board's revised proposals for its grants scheme, and later in the year its strategic plan. All this is an indication that the CITB is proceeding in the right direction.
We intend to keep a close watching brief on the Board. Its powers to raise a levy are exceptional and the Government, like the House, must be convinced that they are absolutely necessary to preserve the basis of training in the contruction industry. Because of the peculiar nature of
756
the industry, the Government have decided to continue with a statutory board for the time being. As we said in the 1989 White Paper, however, we continue to believe that the most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of the skill needs and not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.
I believe it is right for 1991 that the House should approve the proposals before it. I commend them to the House.
10.51 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I praise the work of the CITB, because the construction industry employs nearly 1·8 million people and makes a valuable contribution to the quality of life and a significant contribution to the economy. We do not intend to divide the House on the order, but we have serious misgivings about the nature of some of the proposals included in it.
The order should be seen against the background of a construction industry in crisis. The order may be supported by the House, but it was not overwhelmingly supported by the CITB. The order also continues the systematic dismantling of the two remaining training boards, which are the continuing victims of the purge that was visited upon the training infrastructure in the 1980s.
The order underlines the Government's failure to address the serious issues of sector provision and the need to develop strong, responsible and adequately funded initiatives to tackle some of the economic problems that we shall face in the years up to 2,000.
We are most concerned about how out of step the Government are with what is happening in Europe; how out of line they are with best British practice in training provision, and how out of touch they are with the key contribution that a supply side skills initiative could make to economic well-being and the quality of life of young people and adults in the labour market.
There are a number of charges that we must direct at the Government. Despite the Minister's fine words, the order has not enlisted the full support of the CITB. We have grave reservations about the details in the order, some of which I shall outline later.
Our second charge is that the Government have abandoned any serious commitment to sector-led iniatives. The record of the past decade is ridiculous: of 23 training boards, 16 were removed, followed by another five, and two were grudgingly accepted as part of the statutory framework. I fear that even they will not last much longer, because the Government are keen on the voluntary sector, and that means that nothing practical will be allowed to get in their way.
The third charge relates precisely to the attachment to voluntarism. Ministers say that they do not want bureacuracy or the imposition on employers of a statutory framework. Why then do successful countries have such statutory frameworks, under which their contribution of supply side skills initiatives make a great impact on the economic well-being and industrial performance—and on a key area in which Britain remains weak: output per person employed?
Fourthly, the Government have invested in training and enterprise councils, which we support. But TECs can co-exist in an industrial and training strategy only alongside a strong sector base. Anyone who knows anything about training knows that we must deal with

757
companies' specific difficulties. TECs have a role to play in helping with difficulties in local labour markets, for instance. We must also attack inter-company difficulties through sector-based initiatives.
It is sad that, after 12 years, the Government seem to be moving away from the type of policies that apply in Europe and from the growing consensus surrounding the need for strong sectors.
My fifth charge is that the Government often lecture us to the effect that industry knows best. The CITB has told the Government that it knows best, but in a spectacular example of hypocrisy, the Government have been unwilling to accept the wisdom of the very people whom they have entrusted with the future of training in construction. Our evidence shows that to be true.
The changes in the levy are important. First, the form of calculation is to be changed; and, secondly, the level of exclusion will be altered. The previous levy on employers was levied per capita and different annual rates were set for different trades. That system will be replaced this year by a payroll levy, as the Minister told us. It is true that the move to a payroll levy has won general approval, but many people think that the level at which it has been set is far too low. The Government have forced the CITB to set the levy at the low rate of 0·25 per cent.
The Building Employers Confederation, for instance, which represents the largest group of employers, argues that that percentage is far too low. The BEC wrote to the CITB on 4 September 1990 as follows:
"With regard to the level of 0·25 per cent.… the Confederation considers that it may be unwise to set such a low level at this point in time. Furthermore, during the present period of uncertainty with regard to the future funding of training, especially in respect of Training and Enterprise Councils, and Government cutbacks in YT funding, the Board should not allow the industry's long term training to be jeopardised through lack of sufficient financial support raised through levy."
So that section of the industry is not happy with the 0·25 per cent.; the needs of the industry demand a higher levy.
When reconstituting the CITB, the Government made it clear that they wanted to increase the financial exclusion level. That has always been opposed by the CITB and most of the industry. The Minister has insisted, against the board's advice, that the small firms exclusion level should be increased from £15,000 to £45,000. That, of course, will affect both the 2 per cent. on labour-only payments and the 0·25 per cent. payroll levy. Even after the CITB was forced to back down over the exclusion thresholds, several employers' organisations wrote to the CITB in September last year complaining about the decision. They included the Building Employers Confederation and the Electrical Contractors Association.
In its 90th edition, in October 1990, under the headline
"Warning that training will be hit: Levy 'Escape' Limit Goes Up to £45,000",
Construction Board News reported:
"Despite industry's stated view that all firms should contribute to the cost of training, the CITB has had to agree to a government instruction to exclude many more smaller firms from paying the statutory levy.
This, says the CITB, will cut the amount of levy income and reduce its ability to carry out training."
The industry has clearly spoken, through its newspaper. The proposal was supported by neither the industry nor the board; it was imposed over their heads by a
758
Government who were wedded to the notion of voluntarism, rejecting the practical, common-sense views of board members.
The Construction Board News editorial also said:
"In acceptance of another condition imposed by the Government, the CITB has also agreed to switch its levy charging system to one of a percentage of each company's payroll."
The initial imposition of conditions does not suggest any degree of voluntarism between Government and the CITB. It clearly shows that the Government have made up their mind that this is the direction that the board will follow. It is not a case of industry knowing best, but one of Government knowing best and handing out their own perverted ideology by diktat.
When the board was reconstituted, it did not approve of a levy system that was not tied to exemption. Again, the Government had stated the conditions under which the board was to operate. They forced the board to undertake a review of the issue of exemptions, and even laid down criteria for how it was to evaluate the views that it received from employers. The review revealed—interestingly—that 10 of the 11 main employers' organisations supported the retention of statutory levy not tied to exemption. The only employers' organisation that wanted to introduce the exemption system was the Scottish Plant Owners Association: as a Scot, I say that with some regret.
The result of the review was a severe rebuff for the Government's policy of leaving training to the market. On every occasion, the board made its views clear; but it had no chance of changing the Government's mind. It must be remembered that these were handpicked industrialists. There were only two trade union representatives on the board, which was not packed with people who would instinctively oppose the Government's aims. Nevertheless, it felt obliged, through the press and in other ways, to voice its concern about a Government who it felt were working against its interests.
The changes proposed in the order are all linked to the future of the CITB. When it was reconstructed in 1989, the Government made it clear that they were reluctantly giving in to employer pressure: they cannot deny that. What is more, the CITB was given not so much a clean bill of health as a conditional reprieve. It was reconstituted for three years; at the end of that period, its future would be reassessed. Many employers' organisations fear that the Government's real intention is still to get rid of the board.
Let me remind the House of the conditions under which the two remaining statutory boards had to operate. Clearly the Government had been moved by pressure to retain them, but had not been moved by force of argument to accept the wisdom of such a move. A press release issued by the Department of Employment on 4 April 1990 included a reference to a letter in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State had set out the priorities to the new board. The first was to
"continue to develop and promote as a matter of priority modular based nationally recognised vocational qualifications for all occupations within the industry."
No one could disagree with that objective.
The second was to
"operate in a way that ensures its strategies programmes and activities are fully compatible with the development of Training and Enterprise Councils."
Some have argued that it should be the other way round, because in many competitor countries strong sector initiatives are complemented by local delivery, by local

759
market intelligence and by bringing employers together to tackle skills training. The Government want sectors o fall into line with TECs, which were barely developed at that time.
The third condition is important:
"The use of levy funds directly to subsidise training provision and the industry's YTS schemes should be rapidly phased out."
Finally:
"More small firms should be given protection from the burden of levy."
Political ideology permeates Government thought on the future of sector initiatives. Voluntarism or the market model are all-important, and any other consideration, especially a practical one, must play a secondary role.
In a Department of Employment press notice on 9 November, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) outlined his views of the future of the CITB and its construction section. He said:
"In two sectors I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue for the time being. But this does not shake our belief'—
not practical training considerations, but "our belief"—
"that a voluntary approach offers a better, long term solution to meeting industry's own training needs."
There is not an iota of practical evidence to back the right hon. Gentleman's "belief'. Will the Minister say what evidence the Government have to sustain that view?
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield continued:
"I have told the two ITBs concerned that we shall be carrying out a searching review in about three years time to see if statutory arrangements are still necessary."
The sting in the tail followed:
"At present I am minded to think that they too should move to an entirely voluntary basis."
The simple logic is breathtaking—a belief with no evidence to back it. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman was saying, "We shall have a searching review, but we have made up our mind, so for three years do what you wish under the conditions we impose but after 1993 your time will be up."
There is more practical and compelling evidence of the Government's intention to wind up the CITB. They have encouraged sectors such as heating and ventilation, plumbing and electrical contracting to remove themselves from the scope of the CITB. Under the order, they have increased the exclusion threshold from £10,000 to £45,000 and have refused to allow the payroll levy to be set higher than 0–25 per cent. A Labour Government will undertake not a political but a positive review of sector initiatives and of the non-statutory training organisations.
Those changes have dramatically reduced the CITB's income, in addition to the more general cuts in funding of youth training and employment training. The CITB is being forced to spend more than it receives each year, and its reserves are being eaten away. For the year ending 31 March 1990, its income was £167·6 million, but for 31 March 1991, its expected income has been cut to £125·2 million, with levy income cut from £74·4 million to £59·6 million and income from YT cut from £83·9 million to £52·39 million.
For the year 1989–90, the CITB had a current account deficit of £1·46 million, but for the year ending 31 March 1991, the estimated deficit is. £14·465 million. Over the next two years, it expects to receive even less income in levy and Government funding for YT. The CITB has to assume a budget deficit of more than £10 million for each of those years. That amounts to a budget deficit of more than £35
760
million in just three years. The CITB's total reserves were £74·5 million as at 31 March 1990. It is clear that the Government are forcing the CITB to spend all its reserves as a way of helping the wind-down of that organisation.
On 13 February, in the CITB's news release, the director of training, Douglas Shaw, was reported as saying:
"Forecasts of an annual deficit of between £10 million and £11 million in each of the next three years and a consequent fall in the Board's reserves make it necessary to look closely at both the nature of training and the level of support for each category."
There is a clear implication that income is falling because of levy changes and massive cuts in YT and ET funding. The net consequence is that the board uses its reserves, which will last for a finite time, or it cuts the volume or the quality of training or it cuts both.
Obviously, the Government are putting the CITB in the worst of all worlds—it will not be able to satisfy construction employers, because expenditure is declining, and it is risking its reserves simply to maintain current expenditure levels. I hope that the Minister will comment on the financial difficulties facing the board as the Government's policy unfolds over the next two to three years.
It is crucial that we consider all those aspects against the background of the crisis facing construction training programmes. Before the recession, the biggest problem facing construction was skills shortage. The Reading university centre for strategic studies in construction, in a report called "Building—2001", estimated that the annual skills shortfall in construction could be as high as 50,000. The CITB annual report for 1989–90 shows that the shortage of school leavers was undermining training even further. Numbers on the CITB's two flagship training schemes, the YTS and the electrical contracting industry scheme, were down by more than 2,000 on the previous year. A total of 22,453 people started on those schemes in 1989–90 whereas a year earlier the figure was 24,621.
News comment last year also painted a bleak picture of what was in store for new entrants to the construction industry and YTS. An article in The Independent of 8 June 1990 stated:
"The biggest youth training scheme in the country, involving 37,000 construction trainees, is under 'fundamental review', which could lead to severe cuts or even closure."
That was dramatic news at that time, but it is now clear that the number of apprenticeships has slumped. The number of new entrants next year will drop by about 7,000 compared with the number this year. Obviously, all these financial and political pressures are having a direct result on the volume and quality of training.
If this is the skills revolution about which the Government constantly talk, we should like to know how the Government can spend less, force the boards to spend less and affect quality and volume. The CITB is forced to work on the assumption that it will train even fewer entrants in the next two years. In 1991–92, the CITB is estimated to be training only 17,000 new entrants. Further evidence of training cuts comes from figures published by the National Joint Council for the Building Industries, which oversees the building industry's 8,400-strong apprenticeship scheme. That organisation says that the number of apprentice registrations is dropping drastically compared with previous years.
It would be bad enough if the industry was facing only a skills crisis. The Building Employers Confederation's

761
most recent quarterly state of the trade survey, published in February 1991, shows that training is likely to suffer badly in coming months, but it also shows that 53 per cent. of building firms experienced a cut in output, in the last quarter of 1990. Sixty-seven per cent. of the top 20 national contractors reported a cut in output, and 50 per cent. of firms reported a cut in inquiries for new work. The BEC has also estimated that 100,000 jobs in the building industry could be lost by the end of this year.
When the Minister opened this debate, he did not refer to the crisis facing the industry or to the fact that quality and volume training were being cut. Skills shortages stand at 50,000 a year, and the industry also faces the massive impact of the recession. Obviously we are far from having a world-class work force in the construction industry, but the industry has a great desire to work towards that objective.
This shabby tale of the Government's commitment to training in the 1990s raises several issues. The first relates to small employers. The Government are obsessed with the idea that small employers should be cut off from the reality of industrial life and from a fair contribution to training. Figures from the 1988 labour force survey and unpublished data from the Department of Employment computer show the problems facing small employers. Expenditure on training per employee in a company comprising 10 to 49 employees was 98p per hour. For a company employing between 500 to 999, the figure was £3·07. Expenditure per employee as annual costs for training for the firm employing between 10 and 49 employees was £19. However, for the firm with between 500 and 999 employees, the cost was £61.
Small employers need assistance, but the Government's logic is to exclude them. However, that places stresses and strains on the funding for the board's activities in training in general. The Government also do nothing practical to allow small employers to participate effectively in the skills training that a small company needs as much as a large company.
The Government's figures suggest that, instead of pursuing the political holy grail of voluntarism and exclusion, they should be taking a more positive look at the problems facing small employers in construction and elsewhere and then providing some practical solutions. It is evident that small employers face difficulties, but the Government, for political reasons, turn a blind eye to them.
This shabby tale also raises questions about training and enterprise councils in relation to sectors. The engineering industry training board which claims a lead in the industry, was very critical of TECs in an article in the Financial Times on 24 January. It was critical because it thought that the TECs were in danger of creating alternative and inconsistent standards in relation to national vocational qualifications.
However, a much more telling criticism of the Government's approach to sectors vis-a-vis TECs appeared in the March 1989 quarterly published by Incomes Data Services Ltd., which read:
"This is the argument coming strongly from several industries at the moment, notably the Chemical Industry Association which established one of the more successful non-statutory training organisations in the aftermath of the abolition of most of the Industry Training Boards in 1982.
762
Local emphasis, the CIA told a recent CBI conference on training, 'must not be allowed to override, dilute or prevent sectoral and national standards, must not step outside agreed sectoral and national policies and must not allow the loudest voice to fill the biggest local fist with most of the new local resources … TECs will only meet their local needs inside a coherent national framework … We see each TEC acting as an additional resource, as additional pressure point upon training and educational priorities, but not as a replacement for a sector's own local network'."
That is industry telling the Government that their skewed priorities, which mean investment in TECs to the exclusion of sectors, are not something that British industry can support.
The Government must acknowledge that the Chemical Industries Association is responsible, powerful, efficient and forward-looking in dealing with the needs of its industry and, in particular, skills. If that is so, and we should let industry, which knows best, carry out that role, why do the Government never listen to industry? The answer is that they have closed minds and political prejudices. Time is running out for the Government to tackle the skills crisis before a Labour Government return to do so more seriously—[Laughter]
The third issue that I wish to raise amid the laughter and merriment from the sleepy Ministers is that of the non-statutory training organisations. When the Government were dismantling the statutory training boards in the 1980s, they also set up industry training organisations—the voluntarist arm of the sectoral skills initiative. But interestingly, on 26 February 1988, a study was undertaken, and a press notice issued by the Department stated:
"The research paper is the result of the first comprehensive review of the country's 102 Non-Statutory Training Organisations, which represent firms employing about five million people."
It said that more than half—56—could be described as effective. It does not need a brilliant mathematician to work out that that must mean that nearly half were, by definition, ineffective. The caveat was thrown in that some organisations were being reorganised and so could not contribute to the survey.
If that is successful voluntarism, will the Minister say why the new experiment has, in many cases, been such a magnificent failure—so much so that, on 24 January 1991, a mere three years later, a major research project to examine the effectiveness of the national network of sector-based industry training organisations was announced by the then employment Minister?
The Government stumbled into one change which, for political reasons, could never work. Therefore, three years later, after a report had told them that half the organisations were ineffective, a major review is undertaken. I hope that the Minister will consider the need not only to review the NSTOs, but to review positively the work of the construction industry training board so that it can be assured of a future beyond 1993. The lack of certainty in its work is causing immense problems.
The fourth and most important issue that the Government have failed to address is that of economic performance and productivity. Every study that compares Britain with Europe comes up with two broad conclusions. First, our European competitors have sector initiatives that are strong and employer-led, but that also have Government support. There is a relationship between all the partners, including the trade unions and the providers.

763
Secondly, it is clear that every other country in Europe has a better and more consistent record of improved productivity than we do. The Government may respond and say that, in the early 1980s there was a massive shake-out of labour, restrictive practices were removed and there was an increase in productivity. But where is that productivity miracle now? It cannot be delivered through training and enterprise councils or through a company's specific training. Until we establish a better base for foundation skills for 16 to 19-year-olds, it cannot be achieved through that mechanism. It can be done through supply side initiatives in sectors. Whether in engineering or construction, it is clear that productivity is linked to supply side initiatives.
The Government are throwing away an excellent opportunity to tackle the long-term productivity problems, increase output per person and reduce unit costs. That is the key to this country's success in the 1990s. Through sectors, skills and leadership, we have the opportunity to make better productivity improvements than we have at present. On small employers, TECs, NSTOs and economic performance the Government are guilty of ignoring reality, best practice in Europe, and the growing consensus in British industry about the way forward.
I urge the Minister to extend the remit of NSTOs and to consider a secure future for the Construction Industry Training Board and the construction section of the engineering iindustry training board. The Government should take on board the idea that sectors should have a status similar to that of TECs. Both are urgently needed and both are part of our industrial and training strategy for the 1990s, but they are complementary. One cannot survive without the other. Obviously, the enhanced status for sectors will mean that they will become an important part of the debate rather than, as at present, being regarded by the Government as a Cinderella.
Thirdly, in public policy terms, we must get away from the simplistic "politics first, voluntarism" first attitude to statutory provision. If industry says that we need change, will the Government listen? If there is a consensus on a way forward, will the Government listen? Surely we do not need an over-prescriptive Government allowing a statutory board to continue and then setting limits and parameters within which it can operate. Is there not a balance or flexibility so that we can allow industry to work with Government to achieve the best for its sector, in the interests of its sector, and not be tied by the over-prescription that we constantly see?
Fourthly, will the Government reconsider the fact that they have marginalised the employee part of the partnership? Where in this country can we find the ideal that other European countries have? We do not have it. Obviously, unless we can bring in employee representatives in a more positive way, we shall make little progress.
I do not expect for a minute that the Government will take on board any suggestions that we make, but it is clear that, if the Government will not attend to the skill needs of the nation, we certainly shall. In the remaining few months until there is a Labour Government, it is incumbent on the Minister to take seriously the issues that the Opposition raise.
11.26 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: I shall speak for only a couple of minutes, and I shall do so on the basis of having worked directly in the construction industry since 1967 and having been a director of a member firm of the Building Employers Confederation, for which I also worked directly for six years. Therefore, I declare an interest as a director of a large construction company which pays levy and receives grant as a result of training.
The strictures of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) were grossly exaggerated. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government were not listening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that the Government were minded to abolish the construction industry training board a couple of years ago and that they listened not only to the industry but to a considerable number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. In particular, they listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). The training headquarters of the construction industry training board is based in Bircham Newton, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has done an outstanding job in defending the interests of his constituents and raising these matters with Ministers. I pay tribute to him.
Having worked in the industry for many years, and still working in it, I know that the board is absolutely essential to the industry. Despite the continual use of the expression "the construction industry" by the hon. Gentleman and many other people, there is no such thing as the construction industry, except as an overall expression. There are a large number of different industries and different trades within it. Some of them do absolutely no training. The private house building sector, for example, has hardly any apprentices. The vast majority of the work that takes place on house building sites is sub-contracted to labour-only gangs and self-employed men. It is an extremely efficient system but not one which produces many apprentices. That is well known. The hon. Gentleman gave figures showing the declining number of apprentices. I remember giving exactly the same figures 20 years ago in discussions with Ministers at the time. The number of apprentices rises and falls according to the state of the industry; at present, the industry is in recession and is therefore taking on fewer apprentices. That is extremely regrettable.
However, in practice, if there were no construction industry training board and if there were no statutory levy—in particular, if there were no levy for labour-only sub-contractors, which is rightly set at the higher figure of 2 per cent. in the order—there would be virtually no training in the industry. People would continually he poaching each other's men; men would simply move from one site to another hunting the higher bonuses that are on offer, particularly when the industry is in good shape, which at present it is not. It is essential, therefore, to maintain the levy.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the exclusion of the smallest firms. I agree with the Government that it is right, although I know that that view is not popular with many of the trade associations. As I said, I worked for one for six years. Quite apart from the administrative nightmare of trying to collect any levy from

765
firms that employ one or two men—or possibly no one at all—such a system would take us back to exactly the problems that we faced in 1969.
I do not know whether the institutional memory of the hon. Member for Fife, Central goes back as far as that, but mine does. I worked in the industry then—directly, at the Building Employers Confederation—and I was concerned with those problems. The board nearly collapsed then. It was Robert Carr and the incoming Conservative Government who saved the board and put it on a firm basis, just as the present Government and the present Minister decided to continue with it.
The basis for the salvation of the board by Robert Carr, then Secretary of State in 1970–71 was that it was agreed that it was ridiculous to continue to allow the very large companies—I am a director of one—to make a profit out of the board and the levy because they were training so many people in management and getting all the levy back and more, while small companies employing two or three people could send to be trained once a man whom they could ill spare off site and would then have to go on paying the levy indefinitely, year after year. My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right to exclude such firms from the levy, and I support him in that regard.
Let me stress to my hon. Friend, however, that construction is not like other industries. It has a mobile work force. It does not have fixed places of employment. Men move from site to site, and sites close, often after quite a short period. If we are to retain any training in the industry at all, we must have a board and we must have a levy. We now have an excellent board with a fine chairman in Cliff Chetwood and a new chief executive in General Wilmott. I wish it every success and I look to my hon. Friend to ensure that it has a good solid future.
11.31 pm
Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for recognising that the Government have been flexible and have listened to the industry's arguments and taken into account the special circumstances pertaining in different sectors of the industry—hence the proposals that we are debating today. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is ironic that the Opposition should have chosen this of all occasions to denounce the Government for having ideological hang-ups about voluntarism. Perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not think deeply enough about the circumstances when he chose this occasion to launch his attack.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the CITB and for its work. I agree with him about it. I also welcome his endorsement of the new training and enterprise councils, although I rather regret the hon. Gentleman's tendency to attempt to set up an opposition between a TEC approach and a sectoral approach. As he said at one point in his speech, they have to be complementary. Arguments based on the premise that they are somehow rival approaches, which formed an element of the hon. Gentleman's speech, are ill founded. The TECs and the industrial training boards—the sectoral bodies—have complementary roles, and we must recognise that.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central rather ironically chose to make a strong pitch in favour of a compulsory
766
levy approach to training. This is not the occasion on which to debate the Labour party's evolving policy on training, although I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take his ideas seriously. We had an opportunity for an extensive debate about these matters only a few weeks ago. The Opposition signally failed to give the House the chance to consider their latest thinking. Opposition Members said nothing about their ideas about compulsory levies—it was Conservative Members who took those matters up.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government's "perverted ideology" in favour of voluntary approaches. The argument about compulsory levies and their value is essentially a practical one based on what works best. The hon. Member for Fife, Central made great play of the experience of other European countries, but there is only one major one that operates the sort of compulsory levy system of which the hon. Gentleman was talking. The French have had considerable success in their training experience, but the majority of those who have examined the system reckon that their levy system has been irrelevant to it.
It is not as though we in Britain are without any practical experience of operating a levy system. We had one, under Governments of both parties, from 1964 through to the early 1980s. If the hon. Member for Fife, Central is right when he says that we do not have a world-class work force in the construction industry, the roots of that must go back to the 15 years when we had the sort of levy system that he considers to be a panacea which will solve all problems.
The Government's philosophy on training, as I explained when I replied to a recent debate on the subject, is to work with employers to improve the quality and quantity of training. That is the way in which we shall achieve the productivity improvements to which the hon. Gentleman rightly attaches importance. Most employers feel strongly that a voluntary partnership will work best. Where there is support for a statutory approach, as there is in this instance, we shall accommodate it. The hon. Member for Fife, Central should recognise the irony of the Opposition rebuking the Government for our attachment to voluntarism during a debate on a statutory levy.
Mr. McLeish: The Minister cannot have it all ways. The attack on the Government's form of voluntarism was based on their hypocrisy. The CITB was given a conditional reprieve. The Government were in the curious position of wanting to step back from interfering with industry while saying to the board, "Yes, you can operate on your own, but you must have more exemptions for small businesses and a low payroll levy. You must not use funds from the levy to invest in youth training." That is a curious form of voluntarism. We have argued that over-prescription will stem from the voluntarism that the Minister is preaching.
Mr. Jackson: The other great theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech was small firms, and I shall take it up. Before doing so, I express the view that he has not recognised the extent to which there has been consultation with the industry about the operation of the CITB. The decision to retain the principle of a statutory levy arose from consultation with the industry, as did the various reforms which have taken place within the board. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that every arrangement is

767
perfect. It is necessary to keep arrangements under review, and that is what we did. The consequences of that are the changes to and reforms within the CITB to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central talked about the levy and the level of the CITB's income. Secondly, he referred to the small firms exclusion threshold. The levy of 0·25 per cent. was a matter for the board, and it was the board that proposed it. The income from it will be the same as that which would have been derived from a per capita levy. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Opposition's plan for a further review, should they form a Government. I take from that the implication that the hon. Gentleman would intend to increase the levy. I can imagine the kind of welcome that that would receive from the building industry, which I hope will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said—indeed, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will draw its attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. McLeish rose——
Mr. Jackson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a correction.
Mr. McLeish: There is no need for correction. The Minister has raised issues which were not discussed. No one suggested the imposition of a bigger levy. The important feature was that a Labour Government would conduct a positive review—not a political review. There is a significant difference between that, as a statement, and the logical development—as in the mind of the Minister—to the position that the Government have reached.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A positive review results in a tax increase.
Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend says, a positive review results in a tax increase.
The hon. Gentleman cannot attack the Government for having fixed the levy at too low a rate and then attempt to deny the perfectly logical implication that it is his intention to increase the levy.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the reduction in levy income. That was the other aspect of his argument, but he now seeks to imply that he does not believe that that income should be made up by increasing the levy, having made the point that levy income has been reduced. In fact, the reduction in the income is due to the reduction in the size of the coverage of the board due, for example, to the removal of various sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton recognised that the industry has many different sectors and aspects to it. That has been reflected in the changes in the scope and coverage of the CITB that we have developed. The board's total coverage has been reduced by 25 per cent., and that is what the reduction in income reflects.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman recognised the strength of the CITB's reserve position but did not seem to draw any conclusions from that about what would be an appropriate levy.
Mr. McLeish: The implication was that if the CITB continues to use up its reserves as it is doing at the moment, within a few years those reserves will have disappeared. The first question to ask the Minister is
768
whether that makes sense for a board which has substantial assets and wishes to retain them. Secondly, if there are cuts in youth training funding and in the income generated by the levy, will that not result in both the volume and quality of training being drastically cut in the next two or three years?
Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of explaining to do to the building industry. He wants to increase the levy—that is a reasonable implication of his remarks about its being too low—but he now says that the reserves should not be spent. It would be difficult to say to the building industry, especially in the present economic downturn, that a board with substantial reserves should maintain them—and possibly even increase them—while raising the levy that it imposes upon the companies in the sector. That is an unreasonable suggestion to make to the building industry at the present juncture, and the hon. Gentleman should reflect on that.
The hon. Gentleman's other main point related to the exemption of small firms. It was interesting that although the hon. Gentleman affected to be a friend of the small firms—"Give them a chance to contribute to the levy" seemed to be the tone of his argument—he wants to increase the burden on them. That is the logical implication of the proposition that the level for the exclusion of small firms has been set too high.
When we consider the small firms' exclusion from something like a statutory levy, we must ask whether the game is worth the candle. That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The construction industry contains an impressive number of small firms. The most recent census of production shows 160,000 such firms, many of which are very small, as my hon. Friend knows the industry so well can testify. Indeed, 14,801 firms have payrolls of £15,000 or less, and 23,022 have payrolls of £45,000 or less according to the most recent census of production.
If the scope of the levy is extended as the hon. Gentleman would like, many thousands of small firms will be brought into the requirements. Policing them will be extremely complex, difficult and burdensome, and what would be achieved as a result? Although there are many small firms in the industry, the vast majority of its employees work for the larger companies. In fact, 10 per cent. of the firms employ 76 per cent. of the employees—and pay 73 per cent. of the levy. Those circumstances are reflected in the fact that the loss of income to the CITB from raising the small firms exclusion level from £15,000 to £45,000 is only £1·8 million.
The hon. Gentleman talked about stresses and strains on the budget as a result of the change in the exclusion level, but £1·8 million out of an annual total levy income of nearly £60 million does not strike me as being a major stress or strain. The House is obliged to set against that £1·8 million the savings in hassle and bureaucracy affecting many thousands of small firms which we shall achieve by raising the small firms exclusion level. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that point.
This is a very interesting illustration of the dangers of the statutory approach that the hon. Gentleman favours. The danger implicit in any statutory approach is the extension of law-making, rule-making and bureaucracy. There is inevitably a tendency to focus on the statutory arrangements for their own sake, rather than to keep one's eye on the ball in terms of more and better training. The

769
way to keep one's eye on the ball in that respect is to win the co-operation of employers rather than to proceed as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Mr. Peter Newman
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
11.45 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I want to bring to the attention of the House the sad case of my constituent Mr. Peter Newman, and to the hopelessness of that gentleman's situation. I do so with a view to drawing attention to what I think is a gap in the provision for people suffering from the mental illness of which Peter Newman is a victim. Let me begin by referring to some points in Peter Newman's recent history. Because of the shortage of time, I shall leave out quite a lot of detail.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in his place. I have received from him many sensitive, generous and kind letters about this difficult case. I know very well that he will treat it with great seriousness and will try to find an answer. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wished to be mentioned in the context of this case, as it involves a person who, in layman's language, is suffering from schizophrenia. Mr. Peter Newman has never been positively diagnosed as schizophrenic, although a social worker once admitted to his mother, quietly and without commitment, that he had been diagnosed as paranoid with psychotic phases.
One of the key points that I want to draw to the attention of the House is that psychiatrists cannot truly identify, and will not designate, Peter Newman as suffering from any real or recognisable mental illness that could be treated under the Mental Health Acts of 1959 and 1983. In my view, that is one of the gaps in the provision.
Peter Newman has made two attempts to commit suicide. One of these occurred in July 1986, when he was a patient at Long Grove long-stay hospital. The fact that he had been sectioned to be there shows that he suffers from a very serious mental illness. He threw himself from a top-floor window and suffered very serious brain damage. His mother and family took a great deal of time to bring him round and restore him to some kind of normal health. In 1987, he was transferred to a hospital nearer his home—the Princess Alexandra—but he escaped and threw himself from the multi-storey car park, inflicting very serious physical damage on himself. Peter Newman is clearly very determined to commit suicide, and is thus a serious danger to himself.
It is not that many of the authorities have not made some provision for Peter. It is not that they have not been very worried indeed about him and have not tried to diagnose the problem and treat it in some way. Indeed, he spent a year, at the expense of the North East Thames regional health authority, in an extremely costly and excellent hospital—St. Andrews in Northampton. The authorities have done a great deal to try to treat him. Peter Newman released himself from St. Andrews and had to be brought back, after which he finally released himself into society. That was only to pick a fight with his brother when he returned to Hertford, and the Hertford magistrates committed him to Pentonville prison, just before Christmas 1990. All of us concerned with the case were relieved that he was there, because at least he was safe

771
there. The prison authorities put him straight into the hospital wing, where he remained for the whole of his three months' confinement.
On his release, in January this year, there was no place for him to go. Therefore, I made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). the Minister for Housing and Planning, for him to be given addresses of hostels in London. The prison had given him a list of hostels dated 1988, so it was well out of date. He found hostel accommodation. A few weeks later, he broke into Buckingham palace and was arrested by the police. They did not charge him, because they recognised that he was suffering from a mental illness, but instead they took him back to the hostel.
He was then found riding on the outside of trains in the Southern region, arrested again and taken back to the hostel. He was last seen walking among fast-moving traffic in Edmonton, arrested, not charged, and taken by the police to where he is now, Hackney hospital. Two doctors sectioned him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to be detained for a 28-day assessment order. He cannot release himself from that hospital.
I fear that, when he is released, Peter Newman will be released into a world in which there is no provision for him, and he cannot be treated or taken care of. During the time that he was in Northampton, all of us concerned in the case were worried about what would happen to him when he came out. I wrote to the district health authority and to the social services department of the Hertfordshire county council. It is worth reading their replies to me, because they are supposed to take care of him.
The chairman of the health authority said:
"The latest information I have had is that Peter Newman is due to be released at the end of next week and I have to confirm that following the Forensic Psychiatrist's report, Peter Newman will not be the responsibility of the Health Service.
I understand that he would therefore be the responsibility of the Social Services who, as you know, had provided a place for him in one of their homes but he walked out from it. They have no authority to force him to stay. I am sure that Mr. Laming"—
the director of social services in Hertfordshire county council—
"has replied to you in a similar manner and that due to his history, the Local Council representatives will be visiting him prior to his discharge concerning his housing. This action is in line with the recommendations made in the Case Conference held on 15 November 1990."
The social services director, Mr. Herbert Laming, said:
"By all means, take up the case of Peter Newman, since it illustrates extremely well the difficulties which are being faced by Social Services Departments when they are being asked to provide services for people who either refuse to accept what is offered to them, or behave in ways that ensure failure of the placement, or need services which can only be provided by other agencies.
In Peter Newman's case, we have had the experience in the past that we have found residential homes which were prepared to offer him a place, only for him to refuse to accept. We have tried to accommodate him in the residential homes run by the County Council for people with mental health problems, but his behaviour could not be contained in this setting. More recently, his propensity for violent behaviour resulted in the prison sentence he is currently serving.
Of the residential resources approached on Peter's behalf by our staff, only two expressed a willingness to consider him. One is Kneesworth House, which is a private hospital, and if they were to admit him, his place would have to be paid for by the local Health Authority (as they have done on a previous occasion when Peter was admitted to St. Andrews, a similar hospital). The second offer to consider Peter came
772
from a residential home in Devon, whose charges are in the region of £20,000 to £40,000 per annum … The sponsorship budget available to the Department is fully committed and I regret that we are therefore unable to provide funding for such a placement."
Therefore, neither the health nor the social services authorities in Hertfordshire provide a place for Peter to go. I sought a place for him from those responsible for the homeless, but found that there was no local authority provision for people in his position, so there was no question of his being offered such accommodation.
That means that Peter is left to wander aimlessly and hopelessly in London without treatment. Authorities cannot detain him to provide him with the 24-hour care that he needs or prevent him from releasing himself. He needs to be restrained and to have his liberty curtailed, yet there is no way to do so under the current Mental Health Acts.
Care can be provided by the health and social services and by homelessness offices as well as by the police and the prison service. Indeed, many mentally ill people, like Peter, are accustomed to being accommodated in their hospitals, which are the only places where they can be put. Great responsibility lies with the psychiatric services and the mental health commissioners.
At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister, I went to see the mental health commissioner, Professor Evelyn Murphy. At present, it is the fashion to try not to keep anyone in detention if one can possibly avoid it. Although that is laudable and I understand it, it has resulted in a grey area. People are not positively identified as suffering from a mental illness under the definition of the Act, yet by any normal person's judgment, and certainly in the judgment of their family, they are clearly not acting in their own interests. They are vulnerable and a danger to themselves as well as to their community and family.
Mrs. Newman has concluded that her son is lost. He will either kill himself or somebody else. Only in the latter case will his problem be solved by a long-term prison sentence, which he will probably serve in the mental hospital wing of a prison. That is unacceptable, and we cannot allow this to continue.
I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to set up urgently a committee of experts to make recommendations on how people in Peter's condition can be detained, treated and given long-term security under restraint. If necessary, the committee should make recommendations to alter the Mental Health Acts 1959 and 1983 to permit that to happen.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to provide suitable accommodation as a halfway house. Perhaps such people could be identified not as mentally ill under the 1983 Act, but as sufficiently mentally ill that they cannot look after themselves and need to be looked after. I also call on my hon. Friend to meet with me psychiatric consultants and to ask them to examine the position and to make recommendations for alternatives to current practice and definitions of mental illness, so that people in Peter's position can be treated and detained, as I am sure the whole community would wish them to be.
11.59 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute

773
to this important, albeit short, debate. I do so for a number of reasons—not least Mrs. Newman, my hon. Friend's constituent, who wrote to me about her son's case. I am particularly interested because of my membership of the Select Committee on Health.
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. He has represented his constituent and his family positively and sensitively in a difficult area. He has highlighted one of the grave gaps in our policy on community care, with particular reference to the mentally ill—the category into which Peter Newman falls. Those people are dealt with inadequately under the current legislation, and the available accommodation is inadequate to deal with a case such as that of Peter Newman. He has spent a limited time in prison, but that is not the place for someone suffering from a mental illness.
My hon. Friend has asked for certain assurances and commitments from the Government. Those requests are in line with the views of the Select Committee on Social Services, which produced a report on mental illness and community care in the previous Session of Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell me when his Department intend to reply to that report, which has an important bearing on the serious case that my hon. Friend has raised.
12 midnight
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) illustrates the difficulties in the law and practice in the treatment of, and facilities for, mentally ill people. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on raising this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked when the Government expect to respond to the Select Committee on Social Services report on arrangements for provision for the mentally ill. That response will be given shortly—it is reasonably imminent.
My hon. Friends will appreciate that I have some difficulty in responding to the specifics of the case raised tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has argued about the specific nature of the provisions and services available to his constituent. He will understand that those issues relate to an individual case and are bound by the normal duty of confidentiality which govern the relationship between a national health service patient and his clinical advisers.
My hon. Friend disagreed with the clinical assessment of Peter Newman, but I cannot enter into an argument about that. I am not a clinician and therefore I am unable to argue about whether the psychiatrist's clinical assessment was right or wrong. Even if I were able to decide on that assessment, it would be a confidential matter between the psychiatrist and the patient and not one that should be properly traded across the Floor of the House. I do not believe that it would be right for me to get involved in the specifics of the Peter Newman case. I can, however, talk about the arrangements which are made to treat that type of patient in general, and the Government's approach to that.
774
My hon. Friend said that Peter Newman "needs his liberty curtailed". That goes to the heart of the matter. The House must recognise—I know that my hon. Friend does—that to deny any citizen his liberty is a grade A civil rights issue. The subject does not lend itself to administrative finesse. Parliament has rightly insisted that it should be laid down in detail in statute law. If the suspicion grew that a clinician was playing fast and loose with the statutory definition of the circumstances in which liberty can be denied, he would be hauled up not merely for his clinical judgment but also on legal grounds. It is for Parliament alone to describe the circumstances in which any citizen of this country can be compulsorily denied his liberty or be subjected to compulsory clinical investigation.
The mere fact of mental illness does not remove from the citizen in all circumstances the right and ability to take decisions about his own life. Mental illness removes that right in some instances, but those circumstances are defined in the Mental Health Act 1983. If my hon. Friend wishes to argue that the statutory definition of the circumstances in which freedom can be removed needs to be extended or redefined, it is incumbent on him to propose draft amendments to the Mental Health Act to that end. Such amendments would prescribe the circumstances in which he thinks that liberty should be curtailed and which are not covered by the definitions to be found, most importantly, in section 3 of the Mental Health Act.
I put the ball back in the court of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford not merely as a debating point but because the issue has been regularly raised by those concerned about and interested in the subject. The Government have said that they are always open to proposals on how the law can be amended or refined, but we have not yet received detailed proposals showing precisely how the law is inadequate and how the grade A civil rights issue can be advanced.
It is not enough to take a particular case. There is an old saying that hard cases make bad law, so we need to define the circumstances——
Mr. Wells: It was precisely because the definitions in the Mental Health Act needed redefining that I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to help me and everyone concerned by establishing a committee of experts or a group to determine how we can alter the law to meet the gap in provision and in definition. Of course the liberty of the individual must be preserved, but not to the point of making vulnerable people walk the streets of London, without treatment, help or housing.
I need my hon. Friend's help. I do not have a research assistant to do the work. Neither I nor any hon. Member has the resources to do it. We need experts, and I am certainly no expert.
Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, but the difficulty with establishing a committee is that its terms of reference need to be clearly defined. Our minds are not closed on the subject, but the onus is on those who argue that the law is inadequate to describe the circumstances which they believe should be covered by the law——
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also requested that, pending any such committee being set up, he might seek to find appropriate accommodation for

775
Peter Newman? It will need to be accommodation with 24-hour care, treatment and supervision, because the man is mentally ill and requires such care, treatment and supervision. As my hon. Friend said, at present there is no suitable accommodation, there are no resources and there are no facilities to provide the necessary care for this vulnerable person.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has neatly pre-empted my next remark.
I have dealt with the definition of circumstances in which we deny someone his liberty under the Mental Health Act. If an individual does not come within the terms of the Act as written—or even as amended, as a result of my hon. Friend's initiative—we must conclude that he has precisely the same right to refuse treatment for mental or any other illness as any of my hon. Friends, or any other citizen. We all have that important right to discharge ourselves from an NHS hospital, although it may not be in our best clinical interests. I would not wish to finesse or blur Mr. Newman's right to discharge himself from facilities that may indeed be in his best clinical interest, if he is not covered by the Act.
That, of course, increases the onus on us to ensure that provision is adequate, and that mentally ill people who are not subject to the section power accept that the available treatment meets their needs. It is to that aim that the major enhancement of the mental illness programme on which we have embarked is directed. The date of 1 April 1991 marks not only the general implementation of the NHS reforms, but the beginning of the implementation of a major programme of enhancement of mental health facilities within the NHS, initiated by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman).
On 1 April, five points in our mental illness programme begin to take effect. First, each health authority has been charged with the introduction of the care-programme approach to treatment provision for the mentally ill. For those who are under the care of a health authority. the authority is required to ensure an individually tailored care programme for each patient, which must name a key person who is responsible for ensuring that the health and social facilities described in the programme are made available to the individual who benefits. That is a major enhancement of the management of mental illness services.
776
Secondly, from 1 April we shall implement the mental illness specific grant, which will provide for total additional expenditure by social service departments of £30 million in the first year. Thirdly, we have announced the approval of capital allocations through the local government finance system, so that local authority social services departments not only have the specific grant to support their revenue expenditure, but have access to capital funds to ensure that the facilities are there on which the expenditure can be made.
Fourthly, we are continuing with the capital loans fund, which is designed to ensure that inappropriate, old-fashioned mental illness facilities are taken out of commission more quickly, and that the capital released thereby is used to provide more appropriate, effective care facilities within the community. Fifthly—perhaps as important as any other proposal, in the context of cases such as Peter Newman's—the next financial year will see physical expression of our programme for the homeless mentally ill in London, to ensure that, for those who slip through one net—and, to be honest, if we are providing for the majority of mentally ill people in the community, some will slip through—there is also a safety net to give them a staircase back into mainstream provision.
That programme adds up to £155 million of new money for mental illness services over the next three years. I do not think that anyone can doubt the Government's commitment to enhancing provision, precisely to meet the test that I described: that those who are not detained compulsorily under the Mental Health Act must have access to a range of provision that will cause them not to wish to discharge themselves voluntarily from provision that the law does not allow us to provide compulsorily.
I hope that my hon. Friends accept that we have clearly defined the circumstances in which provision should be compulsory. Those are very tightly drawn, properly in my view. If someone is not covered by such provision, it is incumbent on us to ensure that there is adequate voluntary provision, and to address that priority as well.
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 fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts have been extended by the Crown Suppliers in breach of EC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Some contracts appear prima facie to fall into this category, but the question of whether breaches have actually occurred can be conclusively established only by the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions exist, or he has placed, on the freedom of TCS board members to work for any of the companies which have been the beneficiaries of contract extensions in breach of EC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  The general rules applying to the acceptance of outside appointments by civil servants after retirement provide adequate safeguards against any suspicion of impropriety. In particular the assent of the Department is required before any non-industrial staff member may accept an offer of employment by a company with which they have been directly or indirectly involved.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at which board meetings in 1990 the Crown Suppliers sanctioned a number of contract extensions in breach of EC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Although in the course of considering future business, the question of extending contracts was discussed, at no point did the TCS main board sanction extensions in breach of EC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal advice was obtained by his Department during 1989 concerning possible breaches of EC/GATT purchasing regulations by TCS.

  Mr. Yeo
  In July 1989 the Department of the Environment provided legal advice that negotiated procedures were permitted by the EC/GATT regulations on certain grounds which did not include difficulties arising from privatisation. The legal adviser also pointed out the requirement to draw up a written report of any negotiated procedure.

  In September 1989 the legal adviser responded to a draft report relying on reasons of urgency of supply, or incompatibility or disproportionate technical difficulties resulting from a change in supplier. His advice was that none of the considerations given for further contract extensions could be justified under the EC directive.

  No legal advice was sought by the Department from any other source.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the payments made to the 322
  personnel director of the Crown Suppliers included moneys additional to the baseline statutory requirements on termination of his employment with the Crown Suppliers;

  (2) whether payments made to the business director of building management, Property Services Agency, included moneys additional to the baseline statutory requirements on termination of his contract with the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Yeo
  Crown servants are excluded from certain parts of employment legislation providing for baseline statutory payments on termination of employment.

  EC/GATT Regulations
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of contract extensions granted to PENTOS and Ernest Gill in breach of EC/GATT regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  Values of contracts with individual suppliers are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Housing
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of the performance of cash incentive schemes operated by local authorities under section 129 of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  A report on the operation of cash incentive schemes in 1989–90, based on returns received from the local authorities, has today been placed in the Library. Local authorities will be reporting to the Department on the performance of 1990–91 schemes at the end of the financial year.

  Severn Trent Water
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of Severn Trent Water to discuss his company's financial strategy.

  Mr. Baldry
  As Severn Trent Water is a private sector company, it is the responsibility of its directors to deal with financial matters, within the framework of the obligations imposed on the company by its instrument of appointment as a water and sewerage undertaker. The Director General of Water Services ensures that the company complies with those obligations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Property Services Agency(a) has been and (b) is eligible to be contracted to carry out work for the United States air force in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Property Services Agency has carried out work for the United States air force in the United Kingdom for a number of years and continues to do so.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place on the post of the Property Services Agency chief executive following upon the decision to proceed with privatisation of the assets of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is envisaged that the post of chief executive, PSA Services will remain so long as PSA Services has the functions of a Government Department.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he intends to implement sections 49 and 50 of the Environmental Protection Act;

  (2) when he intends to implement sections 63 and 73 of the Environmental Protection Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall announce a timetable for the implementation of part II of the Environmental Protection Act shortly.

  Departmental Discipline
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to ensure that disciplinary actions brought by his Department have been applied consistently at all levels of officials within his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Both the Department of Environment and PSA Services maintain central registers of all disciplinary offences and the action taken. This is consulted by personnel officers before recommending penalties in each case to ensure uniformity of treatment.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements will be made to ensure continuity of employment for those persons who are disabled in his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department already operates an equal opportunities policy designed to ensure that disablement in itself is no bar to recruitment or advancement in the Department.

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent of assured tenancies let by housing associations during 1989 and 1990 within each economic planning region.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information comes from a survey by the National Federation of Housing Associations which provides average rents for assured tenancies let in each of the NFHA regions. Results for the fourth quarter 1989 to the third quarter 1990 have been published in the "NFHA CORE Quarterly Bulletin", and the relevant extracts have been placed in the Library.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further initiatives the Government are taking to promote the sale of lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 4 February at column 40. Since then, we have commissioned a survey of motorists in order to find out what barriers there may be to the further uptake of unleaded petrol. Any further initiatives will be guided by the results of the survey.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much he expects the 1991–92 community charge in Waveney to be increased from last year to take account of defaulters in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Authorities should have as their aim the collection of 100 per cent. of the charges due to them, and we have provided them with extensive enforcement powers. It is for individual charging authorities, when setting their charges, to decide to what extent to make provision for arrears which they consider are likely to be ultimately uncollectable.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many community charge payers in Waveney he expects will benefit from all the relief schemes in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not yet available. However, if Waveney borough council sets its community charge next year at or above £350, a couple who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property of half average rateable value could look forward to a reduction of £395 between them.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect that the community charge reduction scheme will have upon Congleton borough council and its charge payers.

  Mr. Key
  No information is yet available on the numbers of people in each charging authority area who will benefit from a reduction. However, if Congleton borough council sets its community charge next year at or above £388, a couple who have not moved since 31 March 1990 living in a property of half average rateable value could look forward to a reduction of £398 between them.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that community charge payers in Waveney in 1991–92 are not penalised by non-payers in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  From 1 April 1990 local authorities were given widened and strengthened enforcement powers which we would expect them to use to minimise the amount of unpaid charges.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of grant is to be paid by central Government to the Congleton borough council in the coming financial year; and what were the amounts paid in each of the previous five years for which figures are available taking into account any relevant changes in local authority responsibilities.

  Mr. Key
  The following amounts of grant were paid to Congleton borough council or are due to be paid:

  Year

  Amount £

  Rate Support Grant

  1986–87

  1,087,274·00

  1987–88

  883,317·00

  1988–89

  710,635·00

  1989–90

  619,947·00

  325

  Year

  Amount £

  Revenue Support Grant

  1990–91

  9,277,645·00

  1991–92

  8,348,987·00

  The figures for 1990–91 onwards are not comparable with previous years since the grant is now paid into the collection fund on which Cheshire county council is entitled to precept.

  Revenue support grant like rate support grant is not paid in support of particular services and it is not possible to adjust the above figures for any changes in local authority responsibilities.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what percentage of domestic properties for which rates were due domestic rates were not paid in the Chelmsford local authority area in the latest available financial year prior to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Robert Key
  No information is collected centrally on the percentage of domestic properties for which rates were not paid.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish information on(a) poll tax receipts and non-payment and (b) non-domestic rate receipts and non-payment for all those local authorities which have made their third quarterly returns to his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 20 February 1991]: I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the community charge reduction scheme will only apply during 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: Regulations laid before Parliament on 14 February 1990 provide that the community charge reduction scheme in England will initially apply to 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  St. James's Park
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the contract was placed for the rehabilitation of the lake in St. James's park; when the work was scheduled to finish; and on what date it is now expected to be fully completed.

  Sir George Young
  The contract for the rehabilitation of the lake was placed on 29 October 1990. The work was scheduled to finish on 29 March 1991, and is expected to be completed on about 12 April.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve a byelaw under the Public Health Act 1936 to designate beaches in Worthing as bathing beaches.

  Mr. Trippier
  Worthing is already a designated bathing water under the European Community Bathing Water Directive and has met European standards for the past two years.

  Fish
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the numbers of species of fish in the United Kingdom's coastal waters, and if he will list those species which are largely dependent upon estuaries for breeding and migration purposes.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are about 125 species of fin fish in United Kingdom coastal waters of which about half are of interest to fishermen. Leaving aside the non-commercial fish species, the species which take advantage of estuarine conditions at some stage in their lifecycle are bass, flounder, herring, sprat, eel, smelt, salmonids, mullet species and sandeel species.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Indonesian Government on the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in East Timor.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the hon. Lady in reply to her question of 29 March 1990, column 289, the Indonesian authorities are well aware of our views on the need to respect human rights.

  Iran
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran about executions in the past year; and what representations he has made on the assassination of Dr. Kazem Rajavi.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We remain concerned at the high level of executions in Iran. We have made clear to the Iranian Government that we expect them to respond promptly to all the allegations made in the reports of the United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran, including those relating to executions.

  We have not raised with the Iranian Government the case of Dr. Rajavi, which is still under investigation in Switzerland.

  Kenya
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Kenyan Government on behalf of the British citizens of Asian origin who face difficulties with visa and entry regulations for that country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Immigration procedures for entry into Kenya are a matter for the Kenyan Government. We make regular representations to the Kenyan Government on this issue in London and through our High Commission in Nairobi.

  Arab and Islamic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings or telephone conversations he or ministers in his Department have had
  327
  with Ministers or officials from foreign ministries in Arab and Islamic states since 15 January; and what matters have been addressed in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and officials of this Department have been in touch with Ministers and senior officials of almost all Arab and Islamic countries since 15 January. A very wide range of bilateral, regional and internal matters has been discussed, including the Gulf crisis. The great majority of Arab and Islamic Governments firmly support the United Nations resolutions on the Gulf and the requirement for Saddam Hussein to withdraw all his forces immediately and unconditionally from Kuwait.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving tour operators and individuals over the safety of holidaymaking in Yugoslavia in the current year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our current advice is that we see no reason to discourage travel to Yugoslavia. We point out, however, that there have been localised disturbances in Kosovo and in parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. British nationals are also advised to avoid the area of Knin where there have been blockades on roads and railways. Visitors staying longer than one month are advised to register with the British consulates in Belgrade, Zagreb, Split or Dubrovnik.

  We are continually reviewing travel advice for all countries.

  Security Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech he made to the European Foreign Affairs Council on European security policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out our views on European security policy in his Churchill memorial lecture on 19 February, and in his speech in Berlin on 10 December. Copies are available in the Library.

  Israel
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the United States of America and the United Kingdom have vetoed proposed resolutions regarding sanctions against Israel in the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or his officials have had any meetings this year with members of(a) Kuwait and (b) Iraqi opposition political parties.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British diplomats in Saudi Arabia have kept in close touch with all strands of Kuwaiti society as represented, for example, at the Kuwait national 328
  conference held in Jedda on 13–15 October. Officials in London have held a number of meetings with the members of a variety of Iraqi groups.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the deployment of Patriot missiles in the Occupied Territories on the cohesion of the coalition against Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The coalition against Iraq remains firm. The deployment of Patriot missile launchers in defence of Israel is a matter for the Israeli Government.

  The Gulf (Birds)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he has given to efforts to save birdlife in the Gulf area; and if he will make a statement on progress with these efforts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 15 February at col.609. The main aim of the visit of the RSPCA team to the Gulf was to train local volunteers in the techniques of cleaning oil-contaminated seabirds. Nevertheless, the RSPCA team treated more than 500 birds in Saudi Arabia during their time there.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of managerial and professional persons resident in Hong Kong in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on his current assessment of the likelihood of a drain of managerial and professional persons from Hong Kong.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 20 February 1991]: The Hong Kong Government estimate that the number of managerial and professional people (including administrative and technical personnel) resident in Hong Kong in each of the past five years was:

  Number

  1986

  262,000

  1987

  279,000

  1988

  302,000

  1989

  318,000

  1990

  328,000

  The Hong Kong Government estimate that the number of emigrants who fall into these categories in each of the past five years was as follows:

  Number

  1986

  2,600

  1987

  7,400

  1988

  11,200

  1989

  9,800

  1990

  14,500

  The Hong Kong Government believe that, despite loss through emigration, the number of highly educated and professionally skilled persons in Hong Kong should not

  329
  fall in future years if the present trend of local young people graduating overseas continues. Furthermore, Hong Kong's own tertiary institutions are rapidly expanding their output of new graduates. The figures are:

  Number

  1986

  2,800

  1987

  3,000

  1988

  3,600

  1989

  4,300

  1990

  5,000

  It is estimated that by 1996 Hong Kong will be producing over 17,000 new first degree graduates per year.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Geography
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list and give the reasons for his alterations to the recommendations of the geography working group and the National Curriculum Council's consultation report on geography.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend published a draft statutory order for geography on 14 January together with draft attainment targets and programmes of study. At that time he published a statement giving his reasons for making changes to the documents, as he was required to do by the Education Reform Act. Copies of the drafts and the statement of reasons were placed in the Library. I shall send a copy of the texts to my hon. Friend.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider candidates for appointment to the post of chief inspector of schools from outside Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Mr. Eggar
  The new senior chief inspector will be appointed after an open competition organised by the Civil Service Commission. External and internal candidates have already applied, and the post will shortly be readvertised to increase the field from which the appointment can be made.

  Teacher Training Institutions
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to reform teacher training institutions to take account of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Secretary of State already requires teacher training institutions to take account of the Act. The revised course approval criteria, which have been in effect since 1 January 1990, reflect the changing needs of schools, including the demands of the national curriculum. The Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education advises the Secretary of State on whether courses satisfy the criteria. It is keeping the criteria under review and will be offering my right hon. and learned Friend their advice on possible changes to them later this year.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The senior chief inspector regularly undertakes reviews of all aspects of the organisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, within the arrangements applying to the DES as a whole. Such reviews take account of major changes and developments in the education system, for example, the Education Reform Act 1988 and along with the rest of the Department's arrangements are subject to the Secretary of State's oversight and agreements.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much it cost to run the higher education section of Her Majesty's inspectorate in the last financial year; what the projected outturn is for the current year; and what the planned expenditure is for 1992.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  All Her Majesty's inspectorate undertake a range of duties. In 1989–90, the manpower devoted to higher education inspection and reporting was the equivalent of 40 Her Majesty's inspectorate. The inspectorate's total budget in 1989–90 was £25 million and on a pro-rata basis, the cost of higher education inspection was £2·1 million.

  The expected outturn for the current financial year is £2·3 million and for 1991–92 is £2·5 million.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of reports on higher educational institutions and courses completed by Her Majesty's inspectorate categorised by length of time between inspection and publication; and if he will state the average time taken between inspection and publication for Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on higher education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In 1990 Her Majesty's inspectorate published reports on 105 higher education institutions and 13 higher education surveys. The length of time taken between inspection and the publication of these reports is as shown:

  Months

  Reports

  2

  1

  3

  15

  4

  14

  5

  31

  6

  20

  7

  17

  8

  4

  9

  2

  10

  1

  The average time taken between inspection and publication is five months.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what consultations he has recently undertaken with regard to the future structure and funding of higher education and the future system of student support;
  331
  (2) what proposals he is considering to award state scholarships to cover the costs of tuition fees for undergraduates; and what consideration has been given to making students personally liable for the costs of tuition fees.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are listening with interest to the continuing debate about the future structure and funding of higher education. We do not rule out some changes over time, but these would require primary legislation for which the Government have no plans. Nor do we plan any change in the arrangements whereby standard fees are met from public funds for the great majority of students who are eligible for an award.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what targets his Department works to in answering letters(a) from hon. Members and (b) from the general public.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department aims to reply to correspondence(a) within three weeks, and (b) within four weeks of the date of receipt; and to provide an interim reply when a delay is anticipated, for instance in the large number of cases which require an inquiry of an outside body.

  Canterbury Estate, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) to whom his Minister of State referred material he received from tenants during his visit to the Canterbury estate;

  (2) what recommendations his Minister of State made following his visit to the Canterbury estate in Bradford on 15 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As Minister with special responsibility for Leeds and Bradford the purpose of my recent visit to the Canterbury estate was to acquaint myself better with that part of the task force area. I have referred the material with which I was presented by some residents to the task force, which will be following up the issues raised.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will state, for each table in the written evidence given by his Department in the autumn of 1989 to the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (i) when those figures or statistics have been or will be otherwise published, (ii) the name or type of the relevant publication, (iii) the earliest date when the figures or statistics shown in the table were available for use, and (iv) whether the figures or statistics shown in the table were specially prepared in connection with the preparation of evidence to the committee;

  (2) if he will list the publications containing figures and statistics relevant to the consideration of changes in the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers which he expects his Department to publish before the autumn of 1991, in each case stating the expected month of publication;

  (3) if he will state, for each table in the written evidence given by his Department in the autumn of 1990 to the
  332
  Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (i) when those figures or statistics have been or will be otherwise published, (ii) the name or type of the relevant publication, (iii) the earliest date when the figures or statistics shown in the table were available for use, and (iv) whether the figures or statistics shown in the table were specially prepared in connection with the preparation of evidence to the committee.

  Mr. Eggar
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Vocational Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute a study into the(a) funding problems, (b) viability problems and (c) survival rates in workshop-based vocational educational courses in colleges of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of schools for each education authority which have applied for grant-maintained status and the number which have expressed to his Department or to the Grant Maintained Schools Trust an interest in so doing.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table gives the number of schools within each education authority which(a) have been approved for GM status; (b) have published GM proposals on which decisions are pending; (c) are preparing GM proposals following a ballot in favour of seeking GM status; and (d) are holding or are committed to holding a ballot.

  Local Education Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Avon

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  2

  —

  2

  1

  Essex

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Gloucestershire

  4

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  3

  —

  2

  3

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Kent

  4

  5

  5

  5

  Lancashire

  3

  1

  —

  2

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  6

  2

  —

  2

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  —.

  Surrey

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hammersmith

  l

  —

  1

  —

  Kensington

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Southwark

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wandsworth

  —

  1

  1

  1

  333

  Local Education Authority

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Barnet

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Bromley

  1

  —

  —

  4

  Ealing

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Hillingdon

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Newham

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Birmingham

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Dudley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tameside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  62

  26

  23

  47

  Many other schools are considering whether to seek GM status. In the last four months we have sent out on request about 80,000 copies of our explanatory leaflet for parents "Grant-Maintained Schools: Questions Parents Ask".

  School Governors and Managers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grants have been made to the National Association of Governors and Managers and for what purposes in the last two years.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department contributed £8,000 per annum in 1988–89 and 1989–90 towards the cost of improving the association's administration; up to £40,000 is available in the current year in support of longer term restructuring to enable it to become an effective national organisation.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report the number of governors of local authority maintained schools there are in England; and if he will give the membership of the National Association of Governors and Managers.

  Mr. Fallon
  There are an estimated 300,000 governors in local education authority maintained schools. Approximately 3,000 individuals and 480 governing bodies are members of the National Association of Governors and Managers.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what meetings have been held in recent months between Ministers and officials of his Department and representatives of the National Association of Governors and Managers; and who represented the National Association of Governors and Managers.

  Mr. Fallon
  There have been no ministerial meetings with the National Association of Governors and Managers in recent months. Officials have met members of the association's national executive on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will indicate for Kent county 334
  council its ranking for the last 10 years in spending per pupil on school education as against other local education authorities.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of LEAs for which information is available1

  Kent LEA rank2

  Primary

  Secondary

  1979–80

  96

  84

  61

  1980–81

  96

  94

  81

  1981–82

  96

  94

  79

  1982–83

  96

  91

  78

  1983–84

  96

  95

  84

  1984–85

  96

  94

  91

  1985–86

  96

  95

  96

  1986–87

  94

  93

  93

  1987–88

  97

  387

  86

  1988–89

  93

  393

  91

  Notes to table:

  1The rankings relate to authorities in England for which data is available, and are based on authorities' expenditure and pupil number returns to the relevant Government Departments. 1988–89 is the latest year for which data is available.

  2The rankings relate to net institutional spending in primary schools and secondary schools, including the cost of salaries and wages, premises, and certain supplies and services. The cost of school meals, central administration and the financing of capital expenditure is not included. The highest spending authority is ranked as 1.

  3From 1987–88, separate information is not available for nursery and primary schools, and the rankings relate to spending in all such schools.

  Kent County Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received details of the draft Kent county council budget for 1991–92; and if he will indicate the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Fallon
  The education component of Kent county council's standard spending assessment for 1991–92 is £533·3 million. My right hon. and learned Friend has received no details of the council's draft education budget.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an investigation into the quality of the education provided in Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Education Authority Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing for each education authority in England and Wales the latest information available on spending per pupil on school education, ordered by that spending.

  Mr. Fallon
  The available information for England is shown in the tables. Information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  1Average net institutional expenditure per pupil in nursery and primary schools in England 1988–892

  LEA

  £

  Rank

  ILEA

  1,605

  1

  Ealing

  1,385

  2

  Brent

  1,375

  3

  335

  LEA

  £

  Rank

  Newham

  1,360

  4

  Hounslow

  1,270

  5

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,255

  6

  Barnet

  1,250

  7

  Waltham Forest

  1,250

  7

  Sheffield

  1,230

  9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,225

  10

  Merton

  1,210

  11

  Walsall

  1,200

  12

  Hillingdon

  1,195

  13

  Wolverhampton

  1,190

  14

  Croydon

  1,180

  15

  Gateshead

  1,180

  15

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,180

  15

  Doncaster

  1,175

  18

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,175

  18

  Sandwell

  1,175

  18

  Bromley

  1,165

  21

  Knowsley

  1,165

  21

  Bradford

  1,160

  23

  Humberside

  1,155

  24

  Leeds

  1,155

  24

  Liverpool

  1,150

  26

  South Tyneside

  1,150

  26

  Calderdale

  1,145

  28

  North Tyneside

  1,145

  28

  Cumbria

  1,140

  30

  Durham

  1,130

  31

  Hertfordshire

  1,130

  31

  Oldham

  1,125

  33

  Oxfordshire

  1,125

  33

  Rotherham

  1,125

  33

  Bedfordshire

  1,115

  36

  Harrow

  1,115

  36

  Nottinghamshire

  1,115

  36

  Tameside

  1,115

  36

  Enfield

  1,110

  40

  Kirklees

  1,110

  40

  Bexley

  1,100

  42

  Havering

  1,095

  43

  Northumberland

  1,090

  44

  Sutton

  1,090

  44

  Leicestershire

  1,085

  46

  Salford

  1,085

  46

  Bury

  1,080

  48

  Derbyshire

  1,080

  48

  Cleveland

  1,075

  50

  Shropshire

  1,075

  50

  Norfolk

  1,070

  52

  Redbridge

  1,070

  52

  Wirral

  1,070

  52

  Barnsley

  1,065

  55

  Buckinghamshire

  1,065

  55

  Coventry

  1,065

  55

  Isle of Wight

  1,055

  58

  Avon

  1,050

  59

  Essex

  1,050

  59

  St. Helens

  1,050

  59

  Staffordshire

  1,050

  59

  Surrey

  1,050

  59

  Trafford

  1,050

  59

  Wiltshire

  1,045

  65

  Birmingham

  1,040

  66

  Hampshire

  1,040

  66

  Solihull

  1,040

  66

  Stockport

  1,035

  69

  Berkshire

  1,030

  70

  North Yorkshire

  1,030

  70

  East Sussex

  1,025

  72

  Somerset

  1,025

  72

  Warwickshire

  1,025

  72

  Wigan

  1,025

  72

  Dorset

  1,020

  76

  Dudley

  1,020

  76

  Suffolk

  1,020

  76

  Bolton

  1,015

  79

  Sefton

  1,015

  79

  Cornwall

  1,010

  81

  336

  LEA

  £

  Rank

  Gloucestershire

  1,010

  81

  Cambridgeshire

  1,005

  83

  Lincolnshire

  1,005

  83

  Northamptonshire

  1,005

  83

  Sunderland

  1,005

  83

  West Sussex

  1,005

  83

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,000

  88

  Rochdale

  990

  89

  Lancashire

  985

  90

  Devon

  975

  91

  Cheshire

  960

  92

  Kent

  935

  93

  Haringey

  n.a.

  —

  Manchester

  n.a.

  —

  Wakefield

  n.a.

  —

  Average net institutional expenditure1 per pupil in secondary schools in England, 1988–892

  LEA

  £

  Rank

  ILEA

  2,505

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2,435

  2

  Brent

  2,305

  3

  Ealing

  2,145

  4

  Newham

  2,140

  5

  Croydon

  2,040

  6

  Knowsley

  1,990

  7

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,970

  8

  Coventry

  1,940

  9

  Liverpool

  1,905

  10

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,900

  11

  Hounslow

  1,895

  12

  Sandwell

  1,885

  13

  Walsall

  1,885

  13

  Hillingdon

  1,870

  15

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,870

  15

  Havering

  1,860

  17

  Salford

  1,860

  17

  Wigan

  1,845

  19

  Dudley

  1,840

  20

  South Tyneside

  1,825

  21

  Barnet

  1,820

  22

  Sheffield

  1,810

  23

  North Tyneside

  1,780

  24

  Bromley

  1,770

  25

  Cleveland

  1,770

  25

  Gateshead

  1,770

  25

  Leicestershire

  1,770

  25

  Derbyshire

  1,755

  29

  Wirral

  1,755

  29

  Hertfordshire

  1,745

  31

  Nottinghamshire

  1,745

  31

  Wolverhampton

  1,745

  31

  Harrow

  1,740

  34

  Redbridge

  1,735

  35

  Bury

  1,730

  36

  Stockport

  1,730

  36

  Buckinghamshire

  1,715

  38

  Enfield

  1,715

  38

  St. Helens

  1,710

  40

  Trafford

  1,710

  40

  Rochdale

  1,700

  42

  Shropshire

  1,695

  43

  Humberside

  1,690

  44

  Bexley

  1,685

  45

  Cumbria

  1,685

  45

  Calderdale

  1,665

  47

  Oxfordshire

  1,665

  47

  Sunderland

  1,665

  47

  Merton

  1,660

  50

  Tameside

  1,660

  50

  Doncaster

  1,655

  52

  Solihull

  1,650

  53

  Barnsley

  1,645

  54

  Birmingham

  1,640

  55

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,640

  55

  Bedfordshire

  1,635

  57

  337

  LEA

  £

  Rank

  Bolton

  1,635

  57

  Essex

  1,635

  57

  Rotherham

  1,635

  57

  Surrey

  1,635

  57

  Warwickshire

  1,635

  57

  Avon

  1,630

  63

  Northumberland

  1,630

  63

  Sutton

  1,630

  63

  Kirklees

  1,620

  66

  Lancashire

  1,620

  66

  Staffordshire

  1,610

  68

  Bradford

  1,605

  69

  Sefton

  1,600

  70

  North Yorkshire

  1,595

  71

  Oldham

  1,590

  72

  Norfolk

  1,585

  73

  Hampshire

  1,580

  74

  Durham

  1,575

  75

  Berkshire

  1,570

  76

  Somerset

  1,570

  76

  East Sussex

  1,565

  78

  Wiltshire

  1,555

  79

  Cheshire

  1,545

  80

  Gloucestershire

  1,545

  80

  Leeds

  1,545

  80

  Northamptonshire

  1,545

  80

  Devon

  1,535

  84

  West Sussex

  1,530

  85

  Cornwall

  1,525

  86

  Isle of Wight

  1,495

  87

  Dorset

  1,490

  88

  Suffolk

  1,485

  89

  Cambridgeshire

  1,480

  90

  Kent

  1,475

  91

  Lincolnshire

  1,475

  91

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,440

  93

  Haringey

  n./.a

  —

  Manchester

  n./a.

  —

  Wakefield

  n./a.

  —

  1 Net institutional spending includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain other supplies and services. The cost of school meals, central administration, and the financing of capital expenditure is not included.

  2 The figures are based on authorities' expenditure and pupil number returns to the relevant Government Departments.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in sterling, how much Germany's contribution to(a) the United Kingdom, and (b) the allied coalition for the Gulf war has been reduced as a result of the increase in interest rates by the Bundesbank.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not possible to distinguish the effect of the increase in interest rates by the Bundesbank from other factors affecting the sterling-deutschmark and dollar-deutschmark exchange rates and thus the sterling and dollar values of Germany's financial contributions.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to business of each 1 per cent. increase in interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  The calculation of such costs is inevitably fairly approximate. But a one percentage point rise in interest rates may directly increase industrial and commercial companies' gross costs by £ ½–¾ billion a year. A 1 per cent. rise in wages may increase costs by about £1¾ billion a year.

  TESSAs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the total level of personal savings has risen since the introduction of TESSAs.

  Mr. Maude
  TESSAs are proving to be very successful and are undoubtedly helping to encourage a climate of thrift. Any estimate of their effect on the overall level of personal savings would be speculative.

  Swap Deals (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the British banking system of the decision of the Hong Kong Government that swap deals entered into by the Mass Transit Railway may not be valid and will now be validated by retrospective legislation.

  Mr. Maples
  This is a matter for the Hong Kong Government. It will have no impact on the British banking system.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies Her Majesty's Treasury has made of the effect on the overall revenue from capital gains taxation of reducing the rate; and whether he will consider the results of studies undertaken in the United States of America.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of the effect of changes in capital gains tax rates allow for likely implications for the volume of disposals. If rates were reduced, the volume would be expected to increase, but not to the point where there would be an overall rise in tax receipts. Some studies in the United States have suggested that reductions there in the rate of capital gains tax might, for a period, increase tax receipts, but the results are the subject of considerable debate and other studies have suggested that any increase in revenue would be short-term and would quickly be followed by a fall in tax receipts. In any event, studies in the United States are not of direct relevance to the United Kingdom, because of differences between the two countries' tax regimes. In particular, most of those paying tax on capital gains in the United States would be below the annual exemption (for which there is no United States equivalent) in the United Kingdom, and, for the remainder, indexation relief means that the tax liability on gains would commonly be substantially less in the United Kingdom than in the United States. Limitations on data would make it difficult to replicate the United States studies in the United Kingdom.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much VAT was paid per annum by a family consisting of a married man on(a) half of, (b) three quarters of, (c) twice and (d) three times average male earnings, his wife and two children in 1978–79; and what is the most recent estimate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Reliable estimates cannot be made outside the range of three quarters to one and a half
  339
  times average male earnings. For estimates within this range, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 17 January 1991 at column 560.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the impact of indexation of excise duties by product on(a) inflation and (b) revenues in 1991–92 and a full year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The impact of indexation of excise duties by product on the retail prices index and revenues in 1991–92 and a full year are as follows:

  Duty Item

  Retail price index

  Revenue yield 1991–92

  Revenue yield full year

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  Tobacco

  0·20

  445

  515

  Petrol

  0·16

  715

  795

  Derv.

  0·1

  185

  215

  Beer

  0·08

  150

  175

  Wine

  0·05

  55

  60

  Spirits

  0·05

  105

  115

  VED

  0·07

  280

  290

  Cider

  1—

  5

  5

  Other (Rebated Oils etc)

  1—

  15

  15

  Total

  0·62

  1,955

  2,185

  1 Negligible.

  Saving Ratio
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the saving ratio of reduced borrowing and additional savings in recent periods.

  Mr. Maples
  The personal sector saving ratio has risen from 4½ per cent. in the third quarter of 1988 to nearly 9 per cent. in the third quarter of 1990. Over this period, the year-on-year growth rate of real consumers' expenditure has fallen from nearly 7 per cent. to just over 2 per cent., while the growth of personal sector borrowing has fallen from over 22 per cent. to 13 per cent..

  Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to tax incentives to encourage industry to engage in recycling.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Members of the European Parliament
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that Members of the European Parliament representing the United Kingdom are subject to tax on office and travel allowances in a manner identical to hon. Members of this House.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 February 1991]: The European Court of Justice ruled in 1981 that expenses allowances paid by the European Parliament to its Members are not liable to United Kingdom tax.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply, East Midlands
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a report on the electricity supply crisis in the east midlands which resulted from the severe weather conditions of 8 December 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  East Midlands Electricity is preparing a report which is expected to be available during April. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Gas Industry (Competition)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Gas to discuss competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Gas from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the Director General of OFGAS to discuss competition in the gas industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the Director General of Gas Supply from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  14 Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce details of the second non-fossil fuel obligation order.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his plans for the second tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation order.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend proposes to make the second non-fossil fuel obligation order for renewable sources of electricity generating capacity in the autumn of this year.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the number of employees of the 12 regional electricity companies who became shareholders in the industry on its privatisation.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the number of employees of the 12 regional electricity companies who became shareholders in the industry on its privatisation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  About 84,000 employees and 21,000 pensioners of the 12 regional electricity companies, the National Grid Company and the Electricity Association applied for and received shares. Between them they were allocated almost 160 million shares, representing about 7·4 per cent. of the total equity of the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Energy Efficiency
  16 Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with community insulation groups regarding the progress of the home energy efficiency scheme.
  341
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The home energy efficiency scheme came into operation on 1 January and the initial indications are that it is being well received. Through Neighbourhood Energy Action, the community insulation groups were closely involved in the development of HEES.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans his Department has to promote energy efficiency labelling.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Since the White Paper on the Environment "This Common Inheritance" (Cmnd. 1200) my Energy Efficiency Office has consulted extensively on the practicality of appliance labelling schemes and encouraged the European Commission in its own consultative work on drawing up a proposal for a directive. We hope to introduce a voluntary scheme in advance of an EC scheme.

  There are two labelling schemes for housing currently available, both launched in 1990. The schemes are based on the Building Research Establishment's domestic energy model. The EEO is exploring with the organisations involved how the concept of home energy labelling can be more widely promoted.

  Wave-generated Electricity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to commission a reassessment of the efficiency of wave-generated electricity.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A new study of the technical and economic prospects of the generation of electricity from wave energy began in the autumn of 1989 and will be completed this year.

  Oil Production
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of global oil production in 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The IEA estimates global oil production to have averaged 66·6 million barrels per day in 1990.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of United Kingdom oil production in 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  United Kingdom oil production in 1990 is provisionally estimated at 91·6 million tonnes.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in reducing the number of fallow blocks on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Very good progress has been made. At the beginning of 1989, there were 125 blocks in the fallow category and at the end of last year the overall total was 41. I have been informed by those operators still holding fallow blocks that they expect to make further substantial progress this year.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal concerning the level of coal imports after April 1993.
  342
  Mr. Wakeham
  I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the direct funding of British Coal Enterprise's job and career change scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No direct Government funding is given to British Coal Enterprise. However, restructuring grants are made available to the British Coal Corporation, under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, to reimburse British Coal Enterprise for losses incurred by the Company in promoting new employment in coal mining areas. This includes the job and career change scheme.

  Energy Imports
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the United Kingdom was a net importer of energy in 1990.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom was a small net importer of energy in 1990, with net imports amounting to 16·2 million tonnes of coal equivalent. However, in financial terms, the higher value of our exports meant that the United Kingdom was a net exporter of energy to the value of £446 million.

  Green Issues
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who in his Department has been appointed to oversee and develop green issues; how many civil servants have been allocated new or additional responsibilities to deal with the management and development of green issues; and what additional allocation of resources has been made to support programmes related to green issues in his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  At ministerial level, I am responsible for considering the environmental implications of my Department's policies and spending programmes, and for following up the relevant parts of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". As part of this responsibility, I chair the newly-established ministerial committee on energy efficiency which aims to stimulate improvements in all sectors of the economy.

  My Department has set up a steering group and an environment task force to co-ordinate and develop policy on energy and the environment. All relevant divisions are represented on the steering group, which is chaired by a deputy secretary. The task force, which is established within the Energy Technology Division, includes nine staff; it also calls on relevant expertise from other parts of the Department.

  Many aspects of the Department's work are related, either directly or indirectly, to environmental issues. Environmental considerations therefore play an important role in the work of a very much larger number of my Department's officials, but it is not practicable to identify what proportion of the Department's resources overall are allocated to these issues.

  My Department's programmes address environmental questions as appropriate. For example, expenditure on renewable energy R and D is due to increase by about 20

  343
  per cent. in 1991–92 over the level for 1990–91. In addition, the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office is being increased to £42 million in 1991–92.

  Industrial Plant (Dust)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of solid ceramic-based candle filters in dealing with dust within and from industrial plant flues.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Coal has undertaken extensive work to develop candle filters for cleaning dust from pressurised combustors such as utilised at the Grimethorpe fluidised bed installation. Information on its work is within the public domain. British Coal has not funded comparable activity of non-utility scale industrial plant where it is felt candle filters would probably not be economic compared with current established technology.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what volumes of plutonium arising from foreign nuclear fuel reprocessed at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay remain (i) under safeguards in storage at each respective site and (ii) have been returned to the country or countries of origin.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am advised that up to March 1990 some 3·5 tonnes of plutonium from the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel had been returned to its country of origin or sent to a country specified by the owner of the plutonium; all of this was from reprocessing of spent fuel at Sellafield. At the end of March 1990, British Nuclear Fuels plc held some 0·5 tonnes of extracted plutonium at Sellafield on behalf of overseas customers. None was held in store at Dounreay. All civil nuclear materials remain subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many editions of "Coal Board Arbitration Scheme on Coal Mining Subsidence" were in operation before 1 January; and how many cases were dealt with under each edition of the scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Electricity Costs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take action to assist heavy energy-using industries which face significantly increasing costs of electricity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The 1991 prices will depend on the outcome of commercial negotiations currently underway. The Government have created a competitive market for electricity supply in which large users are fully able to participate. I do not believe that it would be right for Government to intervene in the market to assist heavy energy-using industries.

  Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost of energy imports into the United Kingdom for the year 1990.
  344
  Mr. Wakeham
  The value of energy imports to the United Kingdom, excluding the cost of freight and insurance, for the year 1990 was £7,383 million. This is £446 million less than the comparable value for energy exports of £7,829 million.

  Offshore Gas and Oil Industries
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of direct employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in 1990; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs indirectly supported by the industry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  -Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what external financing limit has been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1991–92; and what the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's capital expenditure programme is to be in 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's external financing limit for 1991–92 will be £23·6 million. I have also approved the authority's capital expenditure programme for the year at £27 million.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has set objectives for the new chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have settled objectives with the UKAEA chairman, Mr. John Maltby, on the following terms:

  INTRODUCTION

  Peter Walker wrote to your predecessor, John Collier, on 25 February 1987, setting out the objectives which the Government wished him to pursue as Chairman of the AEA. I am writing to up-date those objectives, taking account of developments both of policy and in the regulatory field, and in the light of the progress made by the AEA to fulfil the main aims of the Government in establishing the Trading Fund in 1986. The objectives represent the general direction in which the Government wishes you to take the AEA. Specific targets, which are referred to in this letter, will be set from time to time by the Government, after consultation with you. Nothing in these objectives over-rides your responsibilities as an Accounting Officer.

  STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

  The AEA's activities are undertaken within the framework of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, the Science and Technology Act 1965, the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986, and other relevant legislation.

  SAFETY

  From October 1990, the AEA has been subject to the safety requirements imposed on licensed operators by the Health and Safety Executive under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (Repeal and Modifications) Regulations 1990. You should ensure that the AEA continues to have arrangements which secure at all times the highest standards in safety that are reasonably practicable, in its day-to-day activities, in its decommissioning activities and in the management of radioactive waste.

  DECOMMISSIONING AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

  Decommissioning and radioactive waste management activities are growing in importance within the AEA's total sphere of operations. You should accordingly ensure that, with the funds made available for this purpose, the AEA carries out in the most cost effective way its decommissioning and radioactive waste management responsibilities, consistent with safety and other requirements of the regulatory authorities.
  345
  AEA TECHNOLOGY

  Aims

  Supported by Government, John Collier began, and you are carrying forward, a major restructuring of the AEA, which is aimed at increasing competitiveness, cutting costs, providing better value for money of its customers and increasing profitability. Since 1989, the AEA has been trading as AEA Technology.

  Strategy

  The AEA is operating in an increasingly competitive market, both for the work which it undertakes for the Government and for other customers. Within the above framework, your prime objective is to ensure that the AEA competes effectively in these markets, develops its business to meet the needs of its customers and, in doing so, earns an acceptable return on its assets. To this end, you should ensure that the AEA has a structure and cost levels that secure these objectives. The Government, whilst continuing to support the AEA in restructuring its operations, looks to the AEA to achieve returns that enable it to fund the costs of restructuring and make a return for the Exchequer.

  Defined customer-contractor relations should apply to all work carried out by the AEA. As far as funding by the Department of Energy is concerned, this work will be specified in Programme Letters agreed with the Department and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Letters. Subject to its statutory constraints the AEA should undertake work for customers, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, on the basis of an acceptable return after taking into account any waste management and decommissioning costs to which the work gives rise, and appropriate contributions to overheads (including the corporate research and application development programme). The AEA should have regard to the nature of the work involved in seeking such contributions.

  Within the framework of legislation and Government policy, you should ensure that the AEA explores all options for exploiting its technology, including collaborating with other organisations where this is commercially justified or where I indicate that there is a national interest in doing so. You should ensure the AEA informs the Department, at an early stage, of its plans for such collaboration.

  You should ensure that the AEA prepares annually a Corporate Plan covering the Public Expenditure Survey period consistent with the business strategy outlined in this letter and taking account of the likely development of each of the main business areas. This should be provided to the Department and contain Business Plans for each main business area. In particular, the Plan should identify those areas where increased resources (money, manpower, research and applications development) are justified by prospects of future profitable business and those where effort should be reduced. The Plan should include a Capital Investment Memorandum setting out the AEA's capital expenditure proposals. The Plan should include contingency planning showing how the AEA would respond to different market out-turns to those assumed in the Plan. I expect to review each year's Plan with you.

  Performance Targets

  You should propose suitable performance targets consistent with and complementary to the financial target (see below) for approval by the Department.

  Financial

  I expect you to ensure that the AEA stays within its External Financing Limit (EFL) as agreed from year to year.

  I expect you to ensure that the financial target, as set by me from time to time after discussion with the AEA, is achieved. I also expect to require you to surrender distributions of agreed sums from time to time to the Consolidated Fund.

  Conclusion

  This letter sets out the main strategic objectives for the term of your current appointment. I expect to discuss each annual Corporate Plan with you, to review the AEA's achievements against the specific targets which have been set, and if necessary to set new targets in the light of this discussion and review. The objectives in this letter will be reviewed not later than the Summer of 1993.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iran (Exports)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to encourage British exports to Iran.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department, in conjunction with the Committee for Middle East Trade provides advice and information to British exporters to Iran. In order to improve our share of an expanding market, we are, with the assistance of the British Embassy in Tehran, attempting to identify new export opportunities. We are also improving our knowledge of market conditions for the benefit of companies wishing to break into the market. The fairs and promotions branch of my Department has offered financial support to companies wishing to participate in the Iran medical fair to be held in June and it is about to make an offer in respect of the Tehran international fair in October.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the totals, by value, of United Kingdom exports to Iran for each quarter of 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  The value of United Kingdom exports to Iran for 1988, 1989 and 1990 was as follows:

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  1990

  January to March

  69·1

  68·4

  71·6

  April to June

  62·2

  53·3

  84·6

  July to September

  63·3

  56·9

  107·1

  October to December

  52·5

  78·6

  121·4

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for trade with Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am aware of the interest being shown by British exporters in business with Iran. Cover is available from the ECGD for exports on credit terms of up to 360 days where payments are secured by irrevocable letters of credit.

  The resumption of cover for exports on medium term credit will need to take account of a number of factors including commercial considerations and conditions in the region generally. Some progress would also need to be made on the settlement of the debts outstanding to the United Kingdom on trade which took place prior to the Islamic revolution.

  Exports to Iraq
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for diesel generators to be exported to Iraq have been issued in the last five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information needed to answer this question is not readily available and the resources required to obtain it would place an unreasonable burden on the Department and the public purse.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the current members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and give the
  347
  relevant experience of each member; how many of the commission are female; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Members of the MMC as at 22 February 1991

  Name

  Position

  Relevant experience

  Sir Sydney Lipworth

  Chairman

  Co-founder and former Deputy Chairman of Allied Dunbar Assurance pic and Chairman of Allied Dunbar Units Trusts plc. Barrister.

  Mr. P. H. Dean

  Deputy Chairman

  Free-lance business consultant. A former Executive Director of the RTZ Corporation plc. Solicitor.

  Mr. H. H. Hunt CBE

  Deputy Chairman

  Former Managing Director of PA Computers and Telecommunications Ltd (PACTEL). Accountant.

  Mr. H. H. Liesner CB

  Deputy Chairman

  Former Chief Economic Adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. A. Armstrong

  Member

  Senior lecturer in Economics, Bristol University.

  Mr. C. Baillieu

  Member

  Former Chairman and Managing Director of Ultrasonic Machines.

  Mr. I. S. Barter

  Member

  Former Chairman and Chief Executive of Unigate International Division. Barrister.

  Professor M. E. Beesley CBE

  Member

  Founding Professor of Economics at London Business School and Government Economic Adviser.

  Mrs. C. M. Blight

  Member

  Solicitor and Economist. Member of the Law Society of Scotland, Lecturer at University of Edinburgh and Councillor for Gas Consumers in Scotland.

  Mr. F. E Bonner CBE

  Member

  Former Deputy Chairman of Central Electricity Generating Board. Accountant.

  Mr. J. S. Bridgeman

  Member

  Managing Director, Enterprises Division of British Alcan Aluminium.

  Mr. L. Britz

  Member

  Executive Councillor of the Electrical Electronic Telecommunication and Plumbing Union (EETPU), Southern Region. Director of British International Helicopters.

  Mr. K. S. Carmichael CBE

  Member

  Managing Partner of Longcrofts, Chartered Accountants.

  Mr. R. Davies

  Member

  Former Chairman of the Thomson Travel Group.

  Professor S. Eilon

  Member

  Former Head of Department of Management Science and presently Senior Research Fellow at Imperial College. Management Consultant.

  Mr. J. Evans

  Member

  Former Chairman of the Press Association, of Times Newspapers and of the International Thomson Organisation. Solicitor and Barrister.

  Mr. A Ferry MBE

  Member

  General Secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Workers. Director of Harland and Wolff.

  Mr. D. G. Goyder

  Member

  Consultant to Birketts Westhorp and Long of Ipswich and Colchester. Lecturer on Company and Competition law. Solicitor.

  Mr. M. Hoffman

  Member

  Group Chief Executive, Thames Water. Chartered Engineer.

  Mr. J. D. Keir QC

  Member

  Former Joint Secretary of Unilever. Chairman of Pharmacists Review Panel. Barrister.

  348
  Mr. Redwood
  The current members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are listed together with a summary of their relevant experience. Two (6per cent.) are female.
  349

  Name

  Position

  Relevant experience

  Miss P. K. R. Mann

  Member

  Vice-President of J. Walter Thompson (JWT) International. Editor 'Consumer Affairs'.

  Mr. G. C. S. Mather

  Member

  General Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Solicitor.

  Mr. L. A. Mills

  Member

  General Secretary of the Banking Insurance and Finance Union and a member of the TUC General Council. A Governor of London Business School.

  Professor A. P. L. Minford

  Member

  Professor of Applied Economics, Liverpool University.

  Mr. J. Montgomery

  Member

  Former Head of Legal Division and Company Secretary, Shell UK. Solicitor.

  Mr. B. Owens

  Member

  Director of Welsh Water's land and leisure subsidiary and of the Cornish Brewery Company.

  Mr. D. P. Thompson RD

  Member

  Former Director General of the British Invisible Exports Council and Director of Lazards. A Governor of Henley Management College.

  Mr. C. A. Unwin MBE

  Member

  Former Regional Secretary (Midland and East Coast Region) of the General and Municipal Workers Union. A senior Governor of Welbeck College.

  Mr. S. Wainwright CBE

  Member

  Director of Amdahl (UK) Ltd. Former Managing Director of National Girobank and Deputy Chairman of the Post Office.

  Professor G. Whittington

  Member

  Price Waterhouse Professor of Financial Accounting and Fellow of Cambridge University.

  Mr. R. Young

  Member

  An Executive Director of Beauford plc. Former Chief Executive of Plastics Division of McKechnie plc.

  Mr. P. Brenan

  Reserve Member

  Chairman of the London Italian Bank. Accountant and Financial Consultant.

  Mr. A. L. Kingshott

  Reserve Member

  Director of the Crown Agents and of The Private Bank and Trust Company. Former Director of International Banking at Lloyds Bank. Chartered Secretary.

  Professor J. F. Pickering

  Reserved Member

  Vice-President (Business and Finance) of Portsmouth Polytechnic.

  Mr. L. Priestly

  Reserve Member

  Board Member of the Civil Aviation Authority. Former Chairman and Chief Executive of Trustee Saving Bank, England and Wales and Secretary-General of the Committee of London Clearing Banks.

  Company Fraud
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of he will list those, apart from company directors, who have a statutory duty to report company fraud to any regulators.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]There is in general no statutory duty on directors or others to report company fraud to regulators. Certain people, however, are under specific statutory reporting duties which may in some circumstances require them to report fraud. In the areas for which the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, such duties include:

  (i) The duty on a liquidator to report evidence of criminality by any past or present officer of the company, and on a liquidator, official receiver,
  350
  administrator or administrative receiver to report conduct by a director of a company, which has at any time become insolvent, which makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

  (ii) The obligation on investment businesses to keep their regulators informed of anything concerning the firm which might reasonably be expected to be disclosed to them.

  (iii) the duty on listed companies to notify to the International Stock Exchange any information necessary to avoid the creation of a false market in the company's listed securities.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West, 7 February Official Report, column 216,

  351
  he will set out (a) the total number of export licences issued by his Department in each year between 1979 to 1988 inclusive and (b) the numbers of export licence applications refused in 1989 and 1990 respectively, giving the main reasons why such applications were refused.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 February 1991]In 1987 and 1988 my Department granted 94,613 and 86,605 export licences respectively. Statistics for previous years are not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of export licence applications refused in 1989 and 1990 was 281 and 283 respectively. In addition, 3,620 and 3,495 licence applications were cancelled by DTI or withdrawn by the companies concerned in 1989 and 1990 respectively. The main reasons for refusing to grant an export licence are the unacceptable risk to national and collective security and that the export is inconsistent with the Government's policy, in particular on nonproliferation, terrorism and human rights.

  Hedgehogs
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor the level of exports of hedgehogs to the United States and Canada and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply. Under the provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, anyone wishing to export hedgehogs requires an export permit from my Department. In the last three years three such permits have been issued, authorising the export of eight live hedgehogs to zoos in the United States.

HEALTH

  Laboratory Services
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether it is his policy specifically to encourage health authorities to contract out pathology services;

  (2) what plans his Department has to increase resources to health authorities to ensure they can improve the efficiency and quantity of laboratory services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have given no specific instructions to health authorities about the contracting out of pathology services or about their level of funding, since it is for each health authority to consider the organisation and level of laboratory provision it requires within its available resources. However, to help improve the efficiency and quality of these services we have given assistance to the Royal College of Pathologists to develop an accreditation scheme for pathology laboratories, and we have commented on the Audit Commission's proposals for the improvement of those services. We are also contributing to the cost of introducing a system of medical audit which will include the pathology discipline, and are funding additional schemes in the national external quality assessment schemes (NEQAS).

  Surgical Tights
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his plans for the provision of surgical tights under the NHS.
  352
  Mr. Dorrell
  Elastic or surgical tights are available on the prescription of a hospital consultant when they are supplied through the hospital service. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Social Surveys
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to launch a survey into the current state of family planning provision, consumer needs and attitudes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We receive information from a number of sources about NHS family planning provision and the needs of those who use this service. I shall shortly be meeting representatives of the main family planning voluntary and professional organisations to discuss family planning issues.

  Carers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish a clear definition of the responsibilities of carers and ensure that such responsibilities are kept under constant review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not sought precisely to define a carer nor their responsibilities. The care in the community policies are intended to make practical support for carers a priority and consider their views in community care planning and assessment.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has made any emergency preparations to assist the Iraqi medical authorities after the end of hostilities in combating the epidemic of water pollution diseases in Iraqi cities arising from the destruction of water supply and sewage systems.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. We understand that a joint WHO/UNICEF mission visited Baghdad earlier this month to deliver emergency medical supplies and to assess the essential health needs of the civilian population. Additionally, the International Red Cross Committee has identified serious shortages of drinking water and after notifying the UN Sanctions Committee, dispatched water purification supplies to Baghdad. It is too soon to say what further international support the Iraqi medical authorities might require once hostilities have ended and what contribution, if any, the United Kingdom might make to such an initiative.

  North Devon Health Authority
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals there are for the purchaser of the North Devon health authority; whether there are any proposals to merge this authority with Torbay or Exeter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  North Devon health authority is embracing the recent Government reforms. We have received no formal proposals to merge North Devon health authority with either Torbay or Exeter health authority. The preparation of any such proposals would initially be a matter for South Western regional health authority, annd the hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. C. Stuart the chairman of that authority for details.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the guidance which he gives to regional health authorities regarding the supply of incontinence pads to elderly people in privately run residential homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Departmental guidance to health authorities on the supply of incontinence pads is contained in HRC(74)16. On 18 February 1991 the NHS management executive wrote to health authorities (EL(91)28), advising that existing incontinence provision should be directed to securing the best practice commended in HN(88)26. Where a change in the supply of incontinence aids is proposed, health authorities should first ensure that an alternative is in place. Copies of these letters are available in the Library. Officials will shortly be beginning a Departmental review of incontinence services.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has agreed guidelines for speech therapy standards with the College of Speech Therapists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that the College of Speech Therapists has not yet finalised its guidelines on professional standards. The Department is being consulted about these guidelines.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the public health needs assessments prepared for district health authorities mention the need for speech therapy services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice or guidance he intends to give to local authorities about the use of irradiated foods in establishments run by social services departments such as old people's homes and children's homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific guidance on the use of irradiated food in establishments run by social services departments is being issued by the Department. In common with all other catering establishments, local authorities and social services departments who choose to use irradiated products will be required to inform consumers under the requirements of the Food Labelling (Amendment) (Irradiated Food) Regulations 1990.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the allocations he proposes to make to national health service regions in England for 1991–92; and what these allocations would be if the weighted capitation funding were strictly adhered to.

  Mr. Dorrell
  1991–92 represented the second year of progress towards allocations based on weighted capitation. Table 1 shows the 1991–92 main revenue allocations for each region and the percentage increases over 1990–91. No region received less than a 10·24 per cent. increase.
  354
  Table 2 shows what each region would have received without a minimum 10·24 per cent. increase.

  The figures exclude allocations for items such as the service increment for teaching and research, joint finance, and allocations for other specific purposes.

  Table One

  Region

  1991–92 Allocation

  Cash Increase

  (£000s)

  percentage

  Northern

  985,319

  10·24

  Yorkshire

  1,011,636

  10·81

  Trent

  1,269,521

  10·79

  East Anglian

  595,741

  12·19

  North West Thames

  1,097,165

  10·24

  North East Thames

  1,295,523

  10·24

  South East Thames

  1,221,187

  10·24

  South West Thames

  946,790

  10·24

  Wessex

  872,078

  12·45

  Oxford

  675,428

  10·24

  South Western

  999,988

  12·11

  West Midlands

  1,566,761

  10·24

  Mersey

  775,235

  10·24

  North Western

  1,294,972

  10·24

  Total

  14,853,676

  10·66

  Table Two

  Region

  1991–92 Allocation Before 10·24 per cent. Minimum Applied (£000s)

  Cash Increase Before 10·24per cent. Minimum Applied percentage

  Northern

  985,763

  10·29

  Yorkshire

  1,128,391

  11·54

  Trent

  1,415,769

  11·52

  East Anglian

  599,670

  12·93

  North West Thames

  1,087,134

  9·23

  North East Thames

  1,283,835

  9·25

  South East Thames

  1,228,938

  10·94

  South West Thames

  945,281

  10·06

  Wessex

  877,830

  13·19

  Oxford

  679,167

  10·85

  South Western

  999,988

  12·84

  West Midlands

  1,566,761

  10·37

  Mersey

  775,235

  8·54

  North Western

  1,294,972

  9·25

  All RHAs

  14,853,676

  10·66

  Dental Services
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have registered with dentists under the new dental contract.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of people in England and Wales registered with dentists under continuing care and capitation arrangements has grown steadily since the new contract started on 1 October 1990 and is now almost 12 million.

  Cumulative totals are as follows:

  End of month

  Cumulative total

  October 1990

  2,091,855

  November 1990

  5,780,346

  December 1990

  8,154,903

  January 1991

  10,592,019

  At 19 February 1991, which is the latest date for which figures are available, the number of people registered with dentists was 11,995,665.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average expenditure per day per patient, in cash and constant prices, for food provisions for hospital in-patients in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1991]The information requested for the financial years 1980–81 to 1988–89 (the latest available) is shown in the table.

  Hospital costs—England—average costs of catering provisions per patient day

  Year

  £

  £

  (cash)

  (at 1988–89 prices)

  1980–81

  1·09

  1·56

  1981–82

  1·18

  1·55

  1982–83

  1·24

  1·54

  1983–84

  1·26

  1·50

  1984–85

  1·32

  1·50

  1985–86

  1·36

  1·50

  1986–87

  1·41

  1·50

  1987–88

  1·49

  1·55

  1988–89

  1·56

  1·56

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  £000 (cash)

  Regions

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Northern

  337,996

  437,025

  482,670

  520,838

  553,996

  586,852

  Yorkshire

  380,746

  494,198

  547,802

  583,406

  619,586

  657,579

  Trent

  449,348

  585,409

  646,945

  696,746

  742,437

  795,285

  East Anglian

  188,939

  244,605

  269,169

  288,951

  312,485

  335,302

  North West Thames

  450,636

  580,117

  649,984

  633,215

  665,435

  701,170

  North East Thames

  488,198

  636,251

  700,172

  800,677

  841,130

  881,326

  South East Thames

  471,151

  603,001

  662,702

  700,421

  739,438

  772,108

  South West Thames

  361,292

  465,365

  515,008

  530,393

  559,102

  586,260

  Wessex

  271,164

  349,377

  389,027

  418,407

  449,145

  482,636

  Oxford

  223,651

  285,343

  313,135

  334,669

  352,838

  381,948

  South Western

  332,137

  426,839

  474,291

  507,281

  540,430

  571,018

  West Midlands

  532,172

  681,869

  751,667

  809,722

  861,251

  919,255

  Mersey

  287,489

  368,928

  407,417

  436,241

  456,590

  483,314

  North Western

  463,250

  603,630

  679,828

  729,550

  769,183

  814,490

  Regions Total

  5,238,169

  6,761,957

  7,489,817

  7,990,517

  8,463,046

  8,968,543

  SHAs

  94,751

  123,474

  140,168

  150,712

  162,311

  166,311

  England

  5,332,920

  6,885,431

  7,629,985

  8,141,229

  8,625,357

  9,134,854

  £000 (cash)

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Regions

  Northern

  620,085

  664,666

  726,424

  802,662

  862,403

  Yorkshire

  699,526

  748,109

  817,426

  901,280

  971,646

  Trent

  843,156

  914,488

  1,009,393

  1,121,344

  1,211,905

  East Anglian

  358,247

  389,423

  431,278

  487,095

  528,194

  North West Thames

  728,848

  777,781

  832,775

  945,712

  1,024,712

  North East Thames

  914,188

  976,100

  1,048,946

  1,178,457

  1,276,820

  South East Thames

  807,525

  857,088

  928,872

  1,039,270

  1,115,590

  South West Thames

  608,276

  650,071

  744,435

  829,204

  903,224

  Wessex

  506,941

  549,152

  599,818

  671,018

  724,776

  Oxford

  402,374

  433,809

  478,889

  537,279

  587,380

  South Western

  603,266

  650,026

  710,039

  788,652

  852,097

  West Midlands

  973,915

  1,049,734

  1,149,328

  1,266,424

  1,381,172

  Mersey

  507,924

  542,821

  589,166

  647,160

  699,483

  North Western

  860,336

  922,352

  1,002,641

  1,104,796

  1,174,578

  Regions Total

  9,434,607

  10,125,620

  11,069,430

  12,320,353

  13,313,980

  SHAs

  174,792

  191,546

  207,281

  234,692

  259,397

  England

  9,609,399

  10,317,166

  11,276,711

  12,555,045

  13,573,377

  356
  Source:

  The annual costing returns (financial returns for 1987–88 and 1988–89) of the district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities prior to 1982–83).

  Note: The figures have been expressed at 1988–89 prices by the use of the provisions purchases sub-index of the health services prices index.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total funding for each health authority for each of the last 11 years; and what was the number of patients treated by each authority over the same period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 January 1991]The following tables show the total revenue expenditure and the number of in-patients treated by each health region and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90.

  Equivalent information for each district health authority in England could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  357

  Number of inpatients treated—Regional totals—1979 to 1990

  Finished hospital stays (discharges and deaths)

  Finished consultant episodes

  Regional health authority

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Northern

  368,578

  393,788

  395,694

  376,067

  409,115

  420,080

  433,131

  441,095

  462,766

  461,033

  496,617

  504,743

  Yorkshire

  433,783

  456,885

  465,514

  454,013

  490,644

  499,895

  517,543

  525,296

  549,847

  551,458

  607,203

  607,332

  Trent

  464,917

  497,306

  511,888

  505,247

  543,221

  557,930

  578,370

  592,398

  612,890

  626,102

  678,061

  698,776

  East Anglia

  201,867

  216,878

  219,585

  213,297

  229,580

  238,332

  250,343

  253,483

  264,117

  269,637

  301,631

  316,710

  North West Thames

  403,264

  412,723

  418,144

  394,415

  408,474

  415,559

  418,753

  419,008

  421,582

  416,153

  462,539

  473,930

  North East Thames

  455,851

  473,469

  474,758

  512,655

  526,398

  534,760

  541,080

  530,372

  527,585

  521,291

  588,983

  606,278

  South East Thames

  438,889

  453,149

  462,239

  461,394

  477,283

  487,772

  501,557

  495,246

  504,666

  487,815

  546,047

  541,962

  South West Thames

  312,264

  320,149

  324,683

  315,210

  329,334

  338,587

  344,430

  347,089

  351,932

  344,259

  394,860

  387,551

  Wessex

  302,772

  318,509

  322,017

  320,936

  332,378

  345,528

  357,311

  366,421

  389,492

  391,376

  427,929

  441,658

  Oxford

  251,898

  264,990

  269,685

  266,304

  276,523

  284,583

  297,524

  299,270

  300,416

  296,433

  329,661

  344,782

  South Western

  338,890

  357,966

  365,849

  370,348

  385,293

  399,018

  408,004

  417,443

  443,179

  451,586

  515,394

  521,726

  West Midlands

  547,773

  575,105

  582,892

  591,061

  619,743

  644,202

  666,217

  673,375

  708,225

  689,457

  790,913

  810,513

  Mersey

  282,629

  297,465

  299,349

  293,928

  312,615

  322,138

  330,990

  336,944

  345,652

  347,893

  378,984

  397,085

  North Western

  509,049

  541,776

  554,967

  553,727

  585,667

  597,756

  617,628

  624,678

  644,540

  640,548

  717,666

  728,297

  SHA's

  87,696

  89,843

  92,613

  91,032

  92,317

  91,405

  90,931

  91,671

  92,465

  90,941

  98,960

  95,283

  England

  5,400,120

  5,670,001

  5,759,877

  5,719,634

  6,018,585

  6,177,545

  6,353,812

  6,413,789

  6,619,354

  6,585,982

  7,335,448

  7,476,626

  Sources:

  1. Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England together with those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities for the years prior to 1982–83).

  2. Statistical returns submitted to the Department (SM12).

  Notes:

  1. Revenue expenditure on HCHS covers that on all services provided by the health authorities concerned including hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services. Capital expenditure and expenditure on family practitioner services (now family health services) is excluded. However, the expenditure figures for all regions in the years prior to 1985–86 include small elements for the administrative expenses of family practitioner committees which were not separately identified.

  2. Following the reports of the steering group on NHS information (the Körner committee) a new definition "finished consultant episode" was introduced to cover both the former in-patient and day case treatment categories. For 1988–89 information was collected under both the new and previous bases and is shown in the table accordingly.

  Liverpool Health Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the salary of the chairman of Liverpool health authority and the contractual working hours.

  East Cumbria Health Authority
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the salary of the chairman of East Cumbria health authority and the contractual working hours.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: With effect from 1 January 1991, chairmen of district health authorities receive remuneration in the range set out in the table. No specific working hours are required by contract, but most DHA chairmen devote an average of three to 3·5 days a week to their duties.

  Teaching or1 Non-Teaching District

  Revenue2

  Remuneration

  £ million

  £

  Teaching

  45 or more

  17,610

  Non-Teaching

  60 or more

  Teaching

  45 or less

  16,659

  Non-Teaching

  30 to 60

  Non-Teaching

  30 or less

  13,812

  1 "Teaching District" means one currently designated as such for the purposes of negotiations in Whitley Councils.

  2 "Revenue" means the annual revenue budget for the financial year 1985–86.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Workers
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the DHSS is taking to assist in the recruitment and training of specialist social workers for the blind.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Health and Social Services presently provides funding for the award of 68 new social work bursaries per annum to enable students to obtain certificates of qualifications in social work. This generic qualifying training provides preparation for all aspects of social work. Specialist qualifying training For social workers for the visually impaired is not available. The recent announcement of a new training strategy for personal social services staff provides an additional £1 million for social services training improvements, a proportion of which will be used to increase the supply of qualified social workers through an additional 25 social work bursaries per annum.

  Continuing education and training for qualified social workers in specialist areas, including workers with the visually impaired, is provided by Health and Social Services Board and other employers through in-service and post-qualification training programmes. Additional funding to expand and develop relevant programmes of further training has been included in the training strategy funds and will be made available to appropriate employers in the forthcoming financial year.

  The Department also provides two bursaries per annum for students undergoing training as rehabilitation workers for the blind.

  Farmers
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next attend a meeting with the Ulster Farmers Union to discuss the problems now facing Northern Ireland farmers.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Secretary of State last met the Ulster Farmers Union on 17 October 1990; I met the union on 7 January. We both met representatives of the union at the Greenmount conference with Commissioner MacSharry on 15 February; I intend to continue to meet the UFU regularly in future.

  Month of Release on Licence

  Years served

  Sentence

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  February

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  3

  3

  1

  —

  SOSP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  April

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  May

  Life

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  6

  —

  2

  —

  —

  SOSP

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  July

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  11

  14

  4

  2

  SOSP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  September

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  October

  Life

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  December

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  —

  —

AGRICULTURE,FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any representations to his Japanese counterpart concerning the continued Japanese killing of whales in the south Pacific ocean and Antarctic seas.

  Mr. Curry
  In June 1990 the United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution agreed by the International Whaling Commission calling upon Japan to reconsider her intention of conducting scientific research whaling in the Antarctic ocean. Japan is now proceeding with a programme to gather new biological data on the minke whale stocks which has been slightly modified in the light of comments by the IWC's scientific committee and is well aware of our views on scientific whaling.

  Farm Sizes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the average farm size in hectares by county in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is shown in the table.

  United Kingdom average farm size by county1

  Hectares

  England

  50·1

  Avon

  30·3

  Bedfordshire

  59·2

  Berkshire

  68·0

  Buckinghamshire

  57·3

  Cambridgeshire

  64·1

  Cheshire

  30·1

  Cleveland

  55·4

  Cornwall

  29·2

  Cumbria

  63·5

  Derbyshire

  39·1

  Devon

  40·7

  Dorset

  51·6

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons sentenced to life imprisonment have been released on licence in each month of 1990; and how many years each such person had actually served in prison since conviction.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sixty-six prisoners serving life sentences were released on licence during 1990. Eight other prisoners, detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure, were released on licence in the same period.

  The number of years served by these prisoners (including time spent on remand and awaiting trial) at the time of their release on licence is as follows:

  Hectares

  Durham

  60·6

  East Sussex

  42·7

  Essex

  57·5

  Gloucestershire

  46·8

  Greater London

  24·8

  Greater Manchester

  21·3

  Hampshire

  60·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  36·5

  Hertfordshire

  64·8

  Humberside

  68·8

  Isle of Wight

  44·1

  Isles of Scilly

  8·3

  Kent

  46·1

  Lancashire

  30·6

  Leicestershire

  58·3

  Lincolnshire

  69·3

  Merseyside

  34·3

  North Yorkshire

  63·1

  Norfolk

  62·5

  Northamptonshire

  81·0

  Northumberland

  144·8

  Nottinghamshire

  62·0

  Oxfordshire

  83·2

  Shropshire

  45·5

  Somerset

  35·5

  South Yorkshire

  44·6

  Staffordshire

  33·3

  Suffolk

  67·5

  Surrey

  30·5

  Tyne and Wear

  49·7

  Warwickshire

  52·5

  West Midlands

  24·6

  West Sussex

  48·3

  West Yorkshire

  22·9

  Wiltshire

  70·1

  Scotland

  158·8

  Borders

  222·1

  Central

  174·0

  Dumfries & Galloway

  144·2

  Fife

  90·8

  Grampian

  96·6

  Highland

  339·4

  Lothian

  105·6

  Orkney

  53·9

  Shetland

  55·2

  361

  Hectares

  Strathclyde

  148·4

  Tayside

  208·4

  Western Isles

  28·6

  Wales

  41·4

  Clywd

  36·2

  Dyfed

  34·3

  Gwent

  32·6

  Gwynedd

  48·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  45·5

  Powys

  57·6

  South Glamorgan

  43·3

  West Glamorgan

  34·8

  Northern Ireland

  25·4

  Antrim

  28·6

  Armagh

  17·8

  Down

  22·0

  Fermanagh

  26·5

  Londonderry

  29·9

  Tyrone

  27·0

  1 Including minor holdings in England and Wales excluding minor holdings in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Note:

  Minor holdings in England and Wales are those satisfying ALL these conditions:

  1. total area less than 6 ha;

  2. no regular whole-time farmer or worker on the holding;

  3. annual labour requirement less than 100 standard man-days (smd) where 1 smd =8 hours productive work by an adult worker under average conditions;

  4. glasshouse area less than 100 sq m;

  5. occupier does not farm another holding.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total numbers of confirmed cases of BSE by county in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information up to 15 February 1991 is detailed as follows.

  County (County No.)

  Cases

  Northern

  Cleveland (04)

  32

  Cumbria (08)

  431

  Durham (12)

  87

  Humberside (51)

  106

  Northumberland (31)

  91

  Tyne and Wear (30)

  2

  Yorkshire North (48)

  880

  Yorkshire South (47)

  80

  Yorkshire West (49)

  103

  Totals

  1,812

  Midlands and Western

  Cheshire (06)

  603

  Derbyshire (09)

  347

  Hereford and Worcester (18)

  444

  Lancashire (21)

  490

  Leicestershire (22)

  537

  Manchester (44)

  17

  Merseyside (25)

  12

  Nottinghamshire (32)

  150

  Shropshire (35)

  573

  Staffordshire (37)

  449

  West Midlands (46)

  15

  Warwickshire (43)

  239

  Totals

  3,876

  362

  County (County No.)

  Cases

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire (01)

  61

  Cambridgeshire (05)

  89

  Essex (13)

  99

  Hertfordshire (18)

  108

  Lincolnshire (24)

  195

  Norfolk (28)

  361

  Northamptonshire (29)

  200

  Suffolk (38)

  278

  Totals

  1,391

  South-East

  Berkshire (02)

  150

  Buckinghamshire (03)

  210

  Hampshire (15)

  904

  Isle of Wight (16)

  174

  Kent (20)

  510

  London (26/27)

  9

  Oxfordshire (33)

  369

  Surrey (40)

  229

  Sussex East (41)

  315

  Sussex West (42)

  603

  Totals

  3,473

  South-West

  Avon (34)

  478

  Cornwall (07)

  1,786

  Devon (10)

  2,566

  Dorset (11)

  2,027

  Gloucester (14)

  712

  Somerset (36)

  2,005

  Wiltshire (45)

  1,449

  Totals

  11,023

  Wales

  Clwyd (56)

  231

  Dyfed (55)

  927

  Glamorgan Mid (58)

  56

  Glamorgan South (57)

  61

  Glamorgan West (59)

  11

  Gwent (60)

  175

  Gwynedd (52)

  67

  Powys (52)

  215

  Totals

  1,743

  Scotland South

  Borders (93)

  34

  Central (94)

  25

  Dumfries (99)

  147

  Lothian (92)

  20

  Strathclyde (95/96)

  209

  Scotland North

  Fife (91)

  51

  Grampian (88)

  161

  Highland (87)

  49

  Orkney (83)

  9

  Shetland (82)

  2

  Tayside (90)

  66

  Western Isles (?)

  1

  Totals

  774

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of(a) suspected and (b) confirmed cases of BSE by county in England, Wales and Scotland for (i) 1990 and (ii) to date in 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:
  363

  Number of confirmed cases and total reported cases in 1990

  County

  Positive

  Total

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  38

  42

  Cambridgeshire

  56

  62

  Essex

  60

  78

  Hertfordshire

  65

  79

  Lincolnshire

  94

  111

  Norfolk

  234

  281

  Northamptonshire

  119

  136

  Suffolk

  161

  192

  Midland and West

  Cheshire

  422

  493

  Derbyshire

  240

  275

  Hereford and Worcester

  243

  307

  Lancashire

  330

  442

  Leicestershire

  315

  379

  Manchester

  10

  13

  Merseyside

  7

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  98

  117

  Shropshire

  317

  408

  Staffordshire

  293

  362

  West Midlands

  7

  8

  Warwickshire

  141

  182

  Northern

  Cleveland

  20

  23

  Cumbria

  264

  318

  Durham

  60

  78

  Humberside

  77

  94

  Northumberland

  49

  63

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  3

  North Yorkshire

  539

  720

  South Yorkshire

  57

  64

  West Yorkshire

  70

  91

  South East

  Berkshire

  63

  82

  Buckinghamshire

  136

  162

  Hampshire

  446

  517

  Isle of Wight

  110

  133

  Kent

  250

  286

  London

  5

  6

  Oxfordshire

  203

  237

  Surrey

  117

  148

  Sussex East

  178

  214

  Sussex West

  329

  378

  South West

  Avon

  314

  430

  Cornwall

  909

  1,170

  Devon

  1,330

  1,587

  Dorset

  1,129

  1,369

  Gloucestershire

  350

  471

  Somerset

  1,251

  1,500

  Wiltshire

  806

  1,081

  Wales

  Clwyd

  144

  310

  Dyfed

  582

  690

  Glamorgan North

  38

  43

  Glamorgan South

  22

  24

  Glamorgan West

  8

  10

  Gwent

  87

  118

  Gwynedd

  30

  47

  Powys

  126

  170

  Scotland

  Borders

  23

  33

  Central

  13

  20

  Dumfries

  90

  134

  Fife

  39

  49

  Grampian

  101

  174

  Highland

  28

  37

  Lothian

  10

  16

  Orkney

  5

  6

  Shetland

  0

  1

  Strathclyde

  127

  180

  364

  County

  Positive

  Total

  Tayside

  42

  63

  Total

  13,828

  17,327

  Number of confirmed cases and total reported cases

  1/1/91—15/2/91

  County

  Positive

  Total

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  0

  8

  Cambridge

  0

  7

  Essex

  0

  10

  Hertfordshire

  0

  13

  Lincolnshire

  4

  30

  Norfolk

  9

  60

  Northamptonshire

  2

  22

  Suffolk

  8

  51

  Midland and West

  Cheshire

  14

  108

  Derbyshire

  0

  54

  Hertfordshire and Worcestershire

  4

  63

  Lancashire

  7

  84

  Leicestershire

  0

  68

  Manchester

  1

  10

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  18

  Salop

  7

  76

  Staffordshire

  3

  56

  West Midlands

  0

  3

  Warwickshire

  3

  29

  Northern

  Cleveland

  1

  3

  Cumbria

  8

  62

  Durham

  0

  8

  Humberside

  1

  10

  Northumberland

  1

  19

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  0

  Yorkshire North

  42

  149

  Yorkshire South

  7

  11

  Yorkshire West

  5

  10

  South East

  Berkshire

  1

  20

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  22

  Hampshire

  5

  97

  Isle of Wight

  0

  21

  Kent

  4

  41

  London

  0

  3

  Oxfordshire

  0

  46

  Surrey

  1

  15

  Sussex East

  4

  50

  Sussex West

  3

  84

  South West

  Avon

  0

  113

  Cornwall

  26

  257

  Devon

  51

  339

  Dorset

  51

  273

  Gloucestershire

  3

  116

  Somerset

  44

  345

  Wiltshire

  19

  221

  Wales

  Clwyd

  3

  59

  Dyfed

  29

  169

  Glamorgan Mid

  0

  5

  Glamorgan South

  0

  6

  Glamorgan West

  0

  2

  Gwent

  3

  17

  Gwynedd

  0

  8

  Powys

  6

  33

  Scotland

  Borders

  0

  7

  Central

  2

  3

  365

  County

  Positive

  Total

  Dumfries

  16

  29

  Fife

  1

  2

  Grampian

  6

  22

  Highland

  4

  8

  Lothian

  0

  1

  Orkney

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  1

  Strathclyde

  13

  32

  Tayside

  3

  10

  Total

  427

  3,519

  Milk Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the report of the Consumers Committee for England and Wales on the milk marketing scheme 1933.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 January 1991, c. 391]: The report of the Consumers Committee for England and Wales of the milk marketing scheme 1933 is being published today. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the differences between the 1990–91 plans published in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper and the 1990–91 estimated outturn.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department's report, copies of which are available in the Library, contains in paragraph 20 the information requested.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new commitments have been undertaken since publication of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper which will involve spending in years after 1993–94.

  Mr. Jackson
  The new schemes undertaken are as follows:

  The job interview guarantee is a new initiative which guarantees all participants an interview for a specific vacancy: it aims to change employers' perceptions of long-term unemployed people and assist long-term claimants to cope more effectively in the jobs market. It is now being extended beyond the inner city areas where it was successfully piloted.

  Programme development funds pilots provide local flexibility of funding to tailor action to special inner city needs.

  Training credits are being piloted by 10 training and enterprise councils. The credits allow young people to "buy" approved training from an employer or specialist provider. The pilots will be evaluated and decisions made on whether to further extend the schemes.

  The teacher placement service, responsibility for which transfers from the DTI in April 1991, is expected to involve spending after 1993–94. It is the intention of the Government to transfer ministerial responsibility for offshore oil safety to my Department during 1991.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Employment what major new capital projects have been started since last year's public expenditure White Paper; and what costs will arise from them in 1990–91 and future years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on capital projects is collated yearly for the supply estimate. Listed in the table are the major capital projects over £500,000 which have been started since the publication of the 1990–91 supply estimate.

  (£'000s)

  Project

  1990–91 expenditure

  Future years expenditure

  Sheffield DEHQ mainframe computer

  500

  3,284

  Integration of Employment Service computer systems

  1,007

  3,022

  Construction of Corby ES office

  964

  848

  Construction of Great Yarmouth ES office

  246

  1,908

  New ES area office Derby

  106

  796

  New ES area office Nottingham

  212

  318

  New Hackney, Victoria park ES office

  22

  1,588

  Refurbishment Shoreditch ES office

  96

  858

  Construction Everton ES office

  423

  796

  Refurbishment Whytheshawe ES office

  454

  552

  New Cheetham Hill ES office

  158

  848

  New Wrexham ES office

  451

  1,957

  New Rhyl ES office

  424

  1,060

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many measures of performance are contained in the current year's annual report; and how many there were in last year's; whether any measures of performance have been enhanced or dropped as a result of a review of performance indicators; and whether the previous year's targets have been met.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department now measures performance through labour market outcomes and end products rather levels of activity as in last year's public expenditure White Paper. Measures of performance in the two documents are therefore not comparable.

  For the Employment Service (ES), last year's public expenditure White Paper set out levels of activity in advance of its becoming a "next steps" agency. Performance targets to which ES has been working are set out in the 1990–91 annual performance agreement which was published in April 1990. The chief executive of the ES will report to my right hon. and learned Friend on ES achievements and use of resources at the end of the financial year. The report will be published in the summer. Discussions on the targets for the 1991–92 annual performance agreement are well advanced and I intend to place a copy in the Library by the beginning of April.

  Programmes administered through training and enterprise councils (TECs) will be increasingly measured by the achievement of outputs rather than simply activity. This is in line with the move to output related funding for TECs. The TEC network will be fully established by September 1991.
  367
  Performance measures for the Health and Safety Executive and ACAS are largely unchanged from last year and overall are being met.

  The estimated performance for 1990–91 is shown in the tables in my departmental report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Employment Legislation Tribunals
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether employers have access to the names of employees who have taken companies to tribunals under the Race Relations Act 1976, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and other employment legislation.

  Mr. Forth
  As with cases heard by most other courts, applications to industrial tribunals, and the tribunals'

  Employees in employment in manufacturing and in service industries in the Leeds travel-to-work area

  September 1981

  September 1984

  September 1987

  Divisions of the standard industrial classification 1980

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.1

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.1

  Number (000s)

  Per cent.1

  2–4 Manufacturing industries

  81·8

  27·5

  67·8

  23·4

  68·2

  23·5

  6–9 Service industries

  187·5

  63·0

  195·6

  67·4

  197·0

  68·0

  1 Percentage of all employees in the travel-to-work area.

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual average number of fatalities and major injuries in British Coal's mines in 1969–70, 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  British Coal Corporation's mines

  Year

  Average number of fatalities

  Average number of major injuries

  1969–70

  96

  677

  1979–80

  44

  493

  1989–901

  15

  580

  1 Figures for 1989 and 1990 are provisional. Statutory changes in the recording of serious and major injury reporting took place in 1981 and 1986, both widening the scope of reportable injuries. As a result of these changes, accidents recorded after 1986 are not comparable with earlier years.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he has any plans to encourage the extension of training facilities for unemployed people who wish to obtain heavy goods vehicle licences as a means of improving their job prospects;

  (2) if he will draw up proposals to provide for free driving lessons for unemployed people who wish to learn to drive as a means of improving their job prospects.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for training and enterprise councils to determine the vocational training provision they will support for unemployed people in the light of the local labour market.

  Restart Courses
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will draw up proposals to include education studies falling within the 21-hour rule as an option for Restart courses.
  368
  decisions, are required by law to be entered on to a register which is held at the central office of the industrial tribunals and is open to inspection by the public.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number and proportion of the Leeds work force in(a) the service sector and (b) the manufacturing sector in each year from 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment estimates for local areas are compiled only when censuses of employment are taken. They cover employees in employment only and exclude then self-employed and also members of Her Majesty's forces.

  The available information from censuses of employment taken in 1981, 1984 and 1987 is given in the table.

  Mr. Jackson
  No; since the two serve different purposes. The 21-hour rule enables unemployed income support claimants to follow part-time education courses for up to 21 hours a week while continuing to receive benefit. Restart courses are short-term courses designed to help longer-term unemployed people to build confidence and motivation and plan their way back to work. Many claimants who take up educational opportunities under the 21-hour rule can also benefit from a Restart course. People who are studying under the 21-hour rule can normally attend Restart courses without disruption to their studies, for example, during vacations.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentages of those on compulsory Restart courses obtain employment at their conclusion.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of job vacancies is taken up by the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief Executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has undertaken to encourage employers to provide jobs for the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  We have in place an extensive range of employment and training measures to help long-term unemployed people compete more effectively in the labour market. The job interview guarantee specifically aims to encourage employers to consider long-term unemployed
  369
  people for their vacancies and has had proven success in helping people back into jobs in the difficult labour markets of the inner cities. The Secretary of State for Employment has announced that, from April 1991, we shall be providing up to 100,000 additional opportunities in programmes such as the job interview guarantee and job club which provide help in securing job interviews and jobsearch.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what level of financial commitment he has made to fund the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters; and on what terms.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has not yet agreed the precise level of financial contribution it will make to the funding of the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date he first made a financial commitment to assist the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters project.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department gave initial agreement to make a financial contribution to the cost of the new South Glamorgan TEC headquarters in September 1990.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost of answering a parliamentary question for written answer to the Department of Employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  The average cost of answering a written parliamentary question is not routinely recorded in the Employment Department. Estimates are, however, made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold (currently £250). However, following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972 in which the Employment Department participated an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering a written question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £64.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Standing Committees
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to give the members of the European Standing Committees notification of the dates which have been listed for consideration by the appropriate Councils of Ministers of documents which have been referred to the Standing Committees.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The expected timetable for Council consideration of an EC document is set out in general terms in the Government's explanatory memorandum on the document. In addition, monthly forecasts of the agendas for individual Council meetings are placed in the 370
  Vote Office (though these are subject to last-minute changes). However, the Government have stated their commitment to holding scrutiny debates early in the consideration of a proposal and certainly before its adoption by the Council wherever possible.

  House of Commons Accommodation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what inquiries he has made into the leasing of offices at 7 Millbank, London SW1, for use as staff or hon. Members' accommodation.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I understand that No. 7 Millbank is one of a number of properties at present under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide accommodation for the House.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the number of jobs that have been created by the Cardiff Bay development corporation since its inception.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The activities of Cardiff Bay development corporation are aimed primarily at facilitating development by the private sector. The following table shows the result of the earliest and most recent surveys of businesses in the corporation's designated area since its inception.

  Date of Survey

  Number of Businesses in CBDC area

  Number of Employees in Businesses Responding

  Number of Businesses not Responding

  January 1988

  861

  15,247

  64

  September 1990

  901

  17,032

  87

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing each of the trunk road improvement schemes in Wales scheduled to start between the current time and April 1994 and which will cost in excess of £1 million; and if he will indicate the order of priority of these schemes in relation to the finance available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 1991 departmental report (Cm. 1516) published on 15 February indicated the following planned starts in 1991–92:

  M4 Brynglas Tunnels and Malpas Relief Road

  M4 Briton Ferry-Earlswood

  A483 Welshpool Relief Road

  Construction of the M4 Baglan-Briton ferry scheme is planned to start six months after the Briton FerryEarlswood scheme to achieve simultaneous completion.

  Other schemes in the short term programme, to start before April 1994, are shown in the 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s", which was published on 25 February. The precise timing and order of starts will depend on completion of engineering, design and statutory procedures, and the availability of finance.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each designated beach in Wales for the 1990 bathing season (a) the date and time of each sample taken for total coliforms and E. Coli and (b) the actual levels of total coliforms and E. Coli present in each sample.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The data requested is on the public registers maintained by the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority, and available for inspection during normal working hours at its offices. A summary of the information is contained within the report prepared under article 13 of the EC bathing water directive, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each non-designated beach in Wales for the 1990 bathing season (a) the date and time of each sample taken for total coliforms and E. Coli and (b) the actual levels of total coliforms and E. Coli present in each sample.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The data in respect of non-designated bathing waters monitored by the National Rivers Authority is kept on public registers maintained by the authority and available for inspection during normal working hours at its offices.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to reduce the ingestion of aluminium into the human body.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Aluminium is an abundant mineral to which all individuals receive widespread exposure from several sources. A review by the independent Committee on Toxicity in 1985 concluded that existing levels of aluminium in food were not a cause for concern. Intakes of aluminium through food continue to be monitored.

  Site

  Date of refusal

  Date of appeal

  Date report received

  Date of decision

  Result

  Garnant Farm, Amman Valley, Dyfed

  12 July 1984

  28 November 1984

  18 April 1986

  22 July 1986

  Allowed

  Llanilid West, Llanharan Mid Glamorgan

  14 March 1986

  27 March 1986

  5 June 1987

  15 October 1987

  Dismissed

  Brynhenllys, Upper Cwmtwrch, Powys

  24 March 1986

  21 April 1986

  4 August 1987

  21 October 1987

  Dismissed

  Park Slip, Mid Glamorgan (Relaxation of condition)

  4 August 1987

  6 August 1987

  Inspector decision

  25 January 1988

  Dismissed

  Cheapside, Ewloe, Clwyd

  24 February 1987

  5 May 1987

  23 May 1988

  20 July 1988

  Dismissed

  Derlwyn, Glynneath, West Glamorgan

  17 July 1987

  30 July 1987

  (2 reports) 1 September 1988

  10 November 1989

  Allowed

  17 August 1989

  Llanilid West Revised, Llanharan, Mid Glamorgan

  19 September 1989

  12 December 1989

  17 September 1990

  —

  Not yet decided

  Bannel Bridge, Buckley, Clwyd1

  9 August 1990

  10 December 1990

  —

  —

  —

  Brynhenllys Brecknock, Powys1

  20 July 1990

  7 September 1990

  —

  —

  —

  Park Slip West North of Cefn Cribwr, Mid Glamorgan1

  2 November 1990

  20 December 1990

  —

  —

  —

  1 Inquiry not yet held.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to require local authorities in Wales to update their 1985 local waste disposal plans and to deposit those plans with his Department.
  372
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 lay down a standard of 200 microgrammes per litre for aluminium in water. This standard is not related to toxicity but was set for reasons of water quality. There are no plans to reduce this level.

  Fluorine
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the link between certain industrial processes and the deposit of fluorine in the populations of those residing near such processes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I am informed that Her Majesty' inspectorate of pollution is aware of the release of fluorides to air from works for which it has responsibilities. Emission limits for fluorides are specified at a level which, following dispersion, should not present any problems to local inhabitants. I understand there is no evidence to suggest that releases of fluorides from industrial installations in Wales represent any health risk to local communities.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of opencast coal planning applications by British Coal that have been refused by the mineral planning authorities, and appeals that have been lodged by his Department; and if he will indicate for each case(a) the date of the refusal, (b) the date of the appeal, (c) the date that the inspector submitted his report to the Secretary of State, (d) the date when he announced his decision and (e) whether the appeal was granted or refused.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on applications refused by mineral planning authorities is not held centrally. Information on appeals to the Secretary of State which have not been subsequently withdrawn is as follows:

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. Under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 each authority will be required to prepare a waste disposal plan and to send a copy to the Secretary of State.
  373
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of planning applications for a landfill waste disposal site that he has called in for his own determination during the past 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  None has been called in during the past 10 years.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's current involvement with matters relating to fish farming in coastal waters.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The responsibilities of United Kingdom Fisheries Departments, including the Welsh Office, for fish farming are set out in the memorandum "Fish Farming in the UK" submitted to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in October 1989.

  Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will provide the figures for Wales corresponding to those given in tables 6.6 and 6.8 on employment and youth training published in Cm 1506.

  Employees in employment

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  Wales

  Year

  Number

  Percentage of total employees

  Number

  Percentage of total employees

  Coal mining1

  1981

  7,400

  16·6

  34,800

  3·7

  1987

  4,600

  10·0

  14,600

  1·6

  Manufacturing2

  1981

  14,500

  32·6

  238,100

  25·4

  1987

  14,300

  31·1

  224,300

  24·3

  1Activity headings 1113–1115 of 1980 SIC.

  2 Divisions 2–4 of 1980 SIC.

  Education
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the directors and principals of all the 'Welsh colleges selected for direct funding from I April 1992 to discuss the particular financial problems of sustaining workshop-based vocational educational higher education courses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Officials from the Welsh Office are scheduled to meet the director of the Polytechnic for 'Wales and the principals of the higher education colleges concerned shortly to discuss a range of issues arising from the proposed transfer. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

  Local Plans
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the date when each local authority in Wales deposited their local plans with his Department.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Local planning authorities are required to place local plans on deposit for public inspection and to send copies of those plans to the Secretary of State. The dates when each local planning authority in Wales deposited local plans were as follows:
  374
  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not readily available and I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Farming
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that the basic hill livestock compensatory allowance form is sent out to all relevant farmers at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The HLCA claim forms were issued to farmers on 7 February.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of people employed in mining and manufacturing in Merthyr and Rhymney, and in Wales; what percentage these are of the total employed; and what the comparable figures were in 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The latest available estimates for the Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work area, from the September 1987 census of employment, are given in the following table.

  Comparable figures for the Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work area are not available for years prior to 1981. Estimates from the September 1981 census of employment are provided as follows.

  Authority

  Local plan

  Deposited

  Aberconwy BC

  Llandudno/Conwy

  14 February 1980

  Afan BC

  Upper Afan Valley

  14 August 1981

  Arfon BC

  Rural Arfon

  9 December 1987

  Arfon BC/Isle of Anglesey BC1

  Menai Strait

  3 July 1980

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Tredegar

  1 September 1983

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Abertillery

  30 April 1987

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Ebbw Vale

  18 August 1988

  Blaenau Gwent BC

  Brynmawr, Nantyglo and Blaina

  19 April 1990

  Brecknock BC, Radnorr DC, Powys CC1

  Hay/Talgarth and District

  13 January 1986

  Brecknock BC, Radnor DC, Powys CC1

  Central Powys

  13 January 1986

  Cardiff CC

  East Moors

  7 December 1979

  Cardiff CC

  South Butetown

  23 June 1980

  Cardiff CC

  West Ely/St. Fagans

  11 December 1980

  Cardiff CC

  North Butetown

  27 July 1981

  Cardiff CC

  Lisvane

  3 April 1981

  Cardiff CC

  Radyr/Morganstown

  19 February 1981

  Cardiff CC

  Canton/Riverside

  24 November 1983

  Cardiff CC

  Adamsdown/Splott

  1 July 1985

  Cardiff CC

  Tongwynlais and the Wenallt

  7 October 1985

  Cardiff CC

  Grangetown

  10 June 1987

  Clwyd CC

  Special Landscape Area

  3 January 1984

  Colwyn BC

  Coastal Colwyn

  28 July 1988

  375

  Authority

  Local plan

  Deposited

  Cynon Valley BC

  Hirwaun and District

  4 November 1982

  Cynon Valley BC

  Abernant/Plasdraw

  8 March 1984

  Cynon Valley BC

  Aberaman/ Abercwmboi and Cwmbach

  8 March 1984

  Cynon Valley BC

  Cwmdare/Trecynon and Llwydcoed

  8 March 1984

  Cynon Valley BC

  Aman Valley

  8 March 1984

  Cynon Valley BC

  Ynysybwl

  6 March 1986

  Cynon Valley BC

  Abercynon

  10 November 1988

  Delyn BC

  Mold

  28 January 1983

  Delyn BC

  Delyn

  31 May 1990

  Dyfed CC

  Black Mountain

  1 November 1984

  Dwyfor DC/ Gwynedd CC1

  Porthmadog/Ffestiniog

  4 November 1977

  Dwyfor DC

  Pwllheli

  15 July 1988

  Dwyfor DC

  Rural Dwyfor

  2 July 1982

  Gwent CC

  Brynmawr

  4 January 1980

  Gwent CC

  Gilwern

  15 December 1983

  Gwynedd CC

  Touring Caravans and Tents

  4 November 1977

  Gwynedd CC

  Ardudwy

  20 March 1981

  Gwynedd CC

  Llanelltyd

  20 March 1981

  Islwyn BC

  Trinant and Pentwyn

  10 August 1981

  Llanelli BC

  Wern Action Area

  29 October 1983

  Lliw Valley BC

  Southern Lliw Valley

  20 July 1984

  Lliw Valley BC

  Northern Lliw Valley

  14 September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan CC

  Nelson and Treharris

  9 September 1982

  Mid Glamorgan CC

  Central Aberdare

  8 March 1984

  Mid Glamorgan CC

  Llantrisant

  19 April 1985

  Monmouth BC

  Abergavenny

  12 January 1989

  Monmouth BC

  Chepstow

  15 March 1990

  Newport BC

  Marshfield and Castleton

  15 December 1986

  Newportt BC

  South East Newport

  23 July 1984

  Ogwr BC

  Ogmore and Garw

  16 May 1983

  Ogwr BC

  Greater Bridgend

  8 September 1983

  Ogwr BC

  Kenfig-Pyle

  15 August 1985

  376

  Authority

  Local plan

  Deposited

  Port Talbot BC

  Cwmafan, Bryn, Goytre Valley and Rural Margam

  20 October 1987

  Powys CC/Brecknock BC

  Brecon and District

  31 March 1989

  Rhondda BC

  Rhondda

  30 December 1983

  Rhondda BC

  Tonypandy and Clydach Vale

  22 February 1990

  Rhuddlan BC

  Rhuddlan Borough

  26 May 1988

  Rhymney Valley DC

  Caerphilly Basin

  14 July 1982

  Rhymney Valley DC

  Mid Rhymney Valley

  18 June 1985

  Rhymney Valley DC

  Upper Rhymney Valley

  8 November 1985

  Swansea CC

  Swansea

  9 May 1988

  Torfaen BC

  South East Pontypool

  15 March 1982

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  Barry

  3 February 1982

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  Barry-Penarth Coastal

  3 February 1982

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  Cowbridge

  21 February 1983

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  East Vale

  12 October 1984

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  Wrexham Maelor

  28 November 1986

  1 Denotes joint local plans.

  "Roads in Wales"
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends updating the information given in the Welsh Office publication "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s" published in April 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that I have issued today a 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer of 1 February to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden,Official Report, column 699, whether the 10 per cent. of routes electrified in Scotland include those under the control of Strathclyde PTE/section 20 areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  My previous answer did not include electrified routes in Strathclyde. Including those increases the percentage of BR's total route mileage in Scotland which is electrified, including projects approved or under construction, to around 23 per cent. In the Strathclyde area some 203 out of 282 route miles (72 per cent.) are electrified.

  M6
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his proposals for widening the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester; what stretches will be affected; what consultations he intends to have on the proposals; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Schemes for the widening of the M6 between Birmingham and Manchester were announced as part of the Government's expanded trunk road programme in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", presented to Parliament in May 1989. Consultants are currently examining the various ways of providing extra capacity on this motorway. There has been discussion with local authorities and others as part of this process. I hope that we shall be able to announce detailed proposals towards the end of the year.

  Auxiliary Coastguards
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of any increased danger to the public as a result of the reduction in manpower and equipment of the auxiliary coastguard service;

  Falmouth coastguard region—Hope cove and Prawle sectors incidents by station 1986–1990

  Coastguard station

  Yealm

  Bigbury

  Hope cove

  Prawle

  Dartmouth

  Totals

  (Hope cove)

  (Hope cove)

  (Hope cove)

  (Prawle)

  (Prawle)

  1986

  A

  3

  —

  9

  8

  3

  23

  B

  2

  1

  6

  1

  1

  11

  C

  5

  4

  14

  10

  19

  43

  D

  1

  —

  6

  3

  —

  10

  1987

  A

  1

  1

  4

  6

  2

  14

  B

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  4

  C

  4

  5

  8

  13

  17

  47

  D

  2

  1

  10

  1

  —

  14

  1988

  A

  2

  2

  5

  9

  3

  21

  B

  1

  1

  3

  —

  2

  7

  C

  5

  4

  6

  11

  4

  30

  D

  2

  4

  11

  1

  —

  18

  1989

  A

  5

  19

  4

  5

  2

  35

  B

  1

  3

  2

  3

  2

  11

  C

  2

  3

  6

  2

  1

  14

  D

  1

  —

  11

  1

  —

  13

  378
  (2) what changes are planned by way of manpower and equipment for Prawle Point coastguard centre.

  (3) what changes are planned by way of manpower and equipment for Dartmouth auxiliary coastguard station;

  (4) if he will initiate a study into the implications of savings in the coastguard auxiliary service for risk of injury or death to those in difficulties on the seas or along the south Devon cliff coastline;

  (5) what changes are planned by way of manpower and equipment for Yealm auxiliary coastguard station;

  (6) what changes are planned by way of manpower or equipment for Bigbury auxiliary coastguard station;

  (7) what changes are planned by way of manpower a nd equipment for Hope Cove auxiliary coastguard centre;

  (8) if he will make a statement about future manning levels at the Hope Cove auxiliary sector office;

  (9) what plans he has over the next five years to alter levels of manpower and equipment along the coastline of South Hams.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Recommendations relating to changes to Her Majesty's coastguard's manpower and equipment were made by an internal review of the Coastguard Sector Organisation and Auxiliary Service. Local coastguard senior management is holding discussions with local interests and staff about the implications of these recommendations in each region. No decisions will be taken on the review's recommendations until the implications have been fully assessed, and full account has been taken of local circumstances and conditions.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the incidents in the Hope cove and Prawle point sectors for each of the last five years which have involved the search and rescue teams of the auxiliary coastguards of Brixham district.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of actual and potential search and rescue incidents attended by auxiliary coastguards at the five stations in Hope cove and Prawle point sectors for the years 1986–1990 are as follows:
  379

  Coastguard station

  Yealm

  Bigbury

  Hope cove

  Prawle

  Dartmouth

  Totals

  (Hope cove)

  (Hope cove)

  (Hope cove)

  (Prawle)

  (Prawle)

  1990

  A

  1

  3

  7

  6

  10

  27

  B

  1

  3

  6

  2

  2

  14

  C

  3

  3

  6

  —

  1

  13

  D

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  5

  Five year total

  42

  58

  130

  84

  60

  374

  Incident Legends:

  A: Investigation/Coordination.

  B: Cliff rescues.

  C: Coastal searches.

  D: Other rescues.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the remit given to the chief coastguard to review coastguard sector organisation and coastguard auxiliary service; and by whom this review was initiated.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The review of the Coastguard Sector Organisation and Auxiliary Service was an internal review initiated by the previous chief coastguard as part of the marine directorate's programme of reviews of administration and operations. Its terms of reference were:"To examine the nature of HM Coastguard's commitments on the coastline, reporting on the adequacy and value for money of the present arrangements; and proposing changes if necessary."

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes are planned by way of manpower and equipment for Brixham district controller's office of the coastguard.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No changes are contemplated in the manning or equipping of the district controller Brixham's district office.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of the GP boat attached to the Hope Cove auxiliary coastguard sector office in the last two years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During 1989 and 1990 the Hope Cove GP boat was launched on patrol every weekend and public holiday during the summer season, over 70 times in all. Although coastguard boats are not declared rescue facilities, during patrols 10 rescues were carried out of persons found to be in trouble. The boat was also launched:

  five times to carry out rescues

  15 times on exercise and training

  20 times to provide offshore coordination of incidents and to assist with coastal searches

  20 times when the number of sport divers active off Hope Cove justified a Coastguard presence afloat.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration underlay his decision to accept the review of coastguards with regard to the future of the Coastguard Sector Organisation and Coastguard Auxiliary Service in South Hams.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The review of the Coastguard Sector Organisation and Auxiliary Service was accepted as a consultative document not a statement of intent. The review proposes a framework for the future which offers opportunities to improve the availability, readiness, and training of the auxiliary and sector organisation to meet current requirements.

  European Airworthiness Organisation
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to secure the location of the headquarters of the European Airworthiness Organisation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority proposed that the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) headquarters should be located at Gatwick, and their initiative was endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The JAA board has since considered the eight candidates for the location of its headquarters, and decided on Amsterdam last December. I am confident that the United Kingdom will continue to play a prominent role in JAA.

  Fenchurch Street Railway
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are British Rail's performance targets in the Fenchurch Street line; and what have been their achievements against these.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table sets out Network SouthEast's quality of service objectives and the Fenchurch Street line's achievement for 1989–90 and for 1990–91 so far.

  Quality of service (performance by percentage) Fenchurch Street line

  Objective

  1989–90

  11990–91

  Punctuality ( 5 minutes)

  AM Peak

  88·0

  76·8

  85·4

  PM Peak

  88·0

  79·5

  76·8

  All trains

  92·0

  87·4

  87·6

  (Punctuality targets revised 1 April 1990 from 87·5 per cent. AM and PM Peaks and 90 per cent. All Trains)

  Service Provision

  99·0

  97·2

  97·7

  Cleaning

  Heavy Interior (every 28 days)

  100·0

  96·1

  89·3

  Exterior (daily)

  100·0

  96·1

  76·1

  1988

  1989

  Load Factors

  am peak

  24·1

  21·6

  sliding door: max. 135 per cent.

  slam door: max. 110 per cent.

  pm peak

  21·5

  20·9

  1Up to January 1991.

  2Passengers in excess of capacity, per cent.

  Autoguide
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an evaluation of the Autoguide pilot project in London; and if he will make a statement;
  381
  (2) what information he has in relation to any decrease in congestion and increased traffic speeds in London attributable to Autoguide;

  (3) if he has issued a licence for an Autoguide pilot scheme for any areas of the country, excluding London;

  (4) if he will list the roads covered by the Autoguide pilot project in London.

  Mr. Chope
  Negotiations with GEC Ltd. on the terms of a licence to install and operate an Autoguide system in London are continuing. Agreement has yet to be reached on the proposed pilot scheme and so it is not possible to say which roads would be included. Estimates made by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggest that drivers equipped with the Autoguide system could reduce their mileage by about 6 per cent. and their journey times by some 10 per cent. No applications have yet been received or invited for Autoguide licences in areas outside London.

  Road Schemes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all road schemes for which draft line orders were published before 3 July 1988, for which no environmental impact assessment has been carried out, and whose line orders have yet to be confirmed.

  Mr. Chope
  All schemes in the national trunk road programme have for many years been subject to a very full environmental appraisal before the line orders are confirmed. Within the requirements of the EC directive, a formal environmental impact statement has accompanied all draft orders published since 21 July 1988. Those schemes for which draft line orders were published prior to the implementation of the directive and for which line orders have yet to be confirmed are as follows:

  A34

  Newbury bypass

  A40

  Gypsy corner/Western Circus

  A406

  Regents Park Road

  A406

  Silver Street—Hall Lane

  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 67m limit specified in article 15(1)(b) of the General Development Order 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 February 1991, column 182]: There is a second case in which the distance limit for safeguarding purposes has been extended beyond 67m. It comprised a two-mile section of the M6 in the east midlands, which forms part of the proposed motorway widening between junction 4 of the M6 and its junction with the M1. The basis for safeguarding is the same as that for the 80-mile section of the M1 referred to in my reply of the 20 February.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will request the chairman of British Rail to make available to interested parties the documentation being submitted to the inquiry commissioned by British Rail into the alternative routes for the channel tunnel rail link from the North downs to London;

  (2) if he will ensure that all parties making submissions to the independent inquiry into the channel tunnel rail link are given access to all the relevant documentation, including submissions and assessments by other parties.
  382
  Mr. Freeman
  No. It would be inappropriate for British Rail to make available documents relating to an internal study and which is not in the nature of a public inquiry. The results of the study will be published in due course if the project proceeds and there will be ample opportunity for discussion before statutory approval is given for a new line.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the chairman of British Rail to publish the inception report which set the terms of reference for the inquiry by the independent assessor into the route of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail expects to publish soon the interim report by W. S. Atkins on the methodology used by British Rail to compare alternative route options.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the chairman of British Rail to publish the report on alternative routes for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 21 January 1991 at column 35.

SCOTLAND

  Natural Heritage Agency
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the proposals to date for appointees to the regional boards of the proposed Scottish Natural Heritage Agency and their chairmen.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It will be for Scottish Natural Heritage to decide whether to have regional boards and, if so, whom to appoint to them.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sites of special scientific interest are currently designated in Scotland; how many of these designations were objected to under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 1 February 1991, 1,307 sites of special scientific interest had been notified in Scotland. A right of objection was introduced by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which came into effect on 26 August 1985. The Nature Conservancy Council's latest available figures are that 491 sites were confirmed during the period from 1 August 1985 to 30 November 1990 and that representations or objections were received in respect of 149 of those sites.

  Tobacco (Children)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for the enforcement of legislation controlling the sale of tobacco to children; and if he intends to introduce any amendments in connection with the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill.
  383
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As with all criminal offences in Scotland, it is for the procurator fiscal to consider reports of alleged offences in relation to the sale of tobacco to children under 16 with a view to criminal proceedings.

  We intend to consult Scottish local authorities about the introduction in the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill of powers to enable them to enforce such offences in a way which would be appropriate to prosecution procedures in Scotland.

  Morar Bypass
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the outcome of the public inquiry on the Morar bypass, held on 20 March 1990, to be announced.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The inquiry report was submitted at the end of September 1990. It contained some recommendations by the reporter which have been the subject of detailed consideration. This is almost complete and it is expected that my right hon. Friend's decision will be issued shortly after the Easter recess.

  Health Board Chairmen
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of occasions during the last 10 years on which a Minister of the Scottish Office has hosted a dinner for health board chairmen; and what were the venues in each case.

  Mr. Lang
  Dinners for health board chairmen were held on 8 July 1983 and 8 February 1991 in Edinburgh castle.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland as at 16 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not yet available centrally. I shall write to the hon. Member in due course and place a copy of the information in the Library.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for(a) each site of special scientific interest and (b) each national nature reserve the number of current management agreements between the Nature Conservancy Council and landowners; and if he will place a copy of each agreement in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time it takes each of his departmental Ministers to answer letters received from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: Disproportionate costs would be incurred in the
  384
  preparation of an answer in the form requested. A survey carried out in my Department during a representative period in 1990 showed an average response time of 17 working days.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the additional funding given to the Nature Conservancy Council to facilitate renotification of sites of special scientific interest in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 February 1991]: The renotification of sites of special scientific interest is 97 per cent. complete. The allocation of funds to renotification is a matter for the Nature Conservancy Council within its budget.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to give further encouragement to the pursuit of structural adjustment in African countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Support for the process of economic reform has been a central aspect of our aid policy for Africa for several years and will continue to be so. We pledged and provided a total of £250 million for the first phase of the World Bank's special programme of assistance for sub-Saharan Africa. We expect shortly to make a further substantial pledge for the second phase of this programme.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the 27 African countries threatened with famine.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government are greatly concerned that 29 million people may be at risk of starvation in 25 African countries. Ethiopia, Sudan, Mozambique, Angola and Liberia are the most seriously affected with a total of over 20 million people at risk. HMG have committed over £118 million emergency assistance to these five countries since the beginning of 1989 and £22 million of relief aid to the rest of Africa. We are ready to do more through 1991.

  Iraq
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of humanitarian needs inside Iraq.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. Security Council resolution 666 charges the United Nations Sanctions Committee to make the necessary determination to establish whether or not humanitarian circumstances have arisen, and to keep the situation regarding foodstuffs in Iraq and Kuwait under review.

  Neither the ICRC nor the UNICEF/WHO team now in Baghdad have yet been able to conduct a full assessment for consideration by the United Nations Sanctions Committee. The ICRC have, however, identified a serious shortage of drinking water and, after notifying the United

  385
  Nations Sanctions Committee, dispatched water purification supplies to Baghdad. The United Nations Sanctions Committee has authorised a consignment of food for ICRC distribution to Iranian internees and some other Asian nationals which the ICRC have identified as being in need.

  Yemen
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the level of overseas aid to the Republic of Yemen will be affected by events in the Gulf.

  Mrs. Chalker
  With the withdrawal of aid personnel from certain parts of the middle east to ensure their safety, our aid programme to the Republic of Yemen is on hold, although certain activities are continuing in the United Kingdom. We hope to resume our bilateral programme in the Republic of Yemen as and when circumstances allow, although it is not possible to say at this stage at what level that might be.

  Food Relief Flights
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many food relief flights his Department is sponsoring.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA has provided financial support for four current food airlift operations, one each in Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola and Mozambique.

  In Sudan the airlift is operated by the Lutheran World Federation from Nairobi to Juba. I have just approved further assistance of £200,000 bringing our total contribution for this airlift since February 1989 to £1·2 million.

  Somalia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Somalia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The various groups who were opposed to the overthrow of Siad Barre's regime have been unable to agree so far on setting up a new Government. We are urging them to do so. Meanwhile fighting continues with the remnants of Siad Barre's forces and also reportedly between some of the rival groups.

  Beef
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to propose environmental conditions into the beef protocol of the Lomé agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 19 February 1991]: When the fourth Lomé convention takes effect (ratification is required by all member states in the Community and two thirds of the ACP countries), the provisions of the beef protocol will allow certain ACP countries to import beef into the EC at reduced levy, subject to national quotas. As environmental concerns are covered in articles 33–41 of the convention, the beef protocol is already subject to them.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State For Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that employees of AWRE are provided with the same opportunities to remain within the UKAEA pension scheme after privatisation as former AWRE employees who transferred to the employment of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Amersham plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The question of pension arrangements for members of the UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme (PNISS) employed at AWRE after contractorisation is under consideration.

  I have given assurances that nobody will suffer detriment to their pension arrangements as a result of contractorisation.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on escapes of dangerous material from biological weapons depots in Iraq destroyed by allied bombing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no reliable information regarding any environmental effects of allied bombing of biological weapons facilities in Iraq. The methods used in attacking such sites are designed to minimise the risk of contamination outside the sites. Any remaining risk must be balanced against the risk of Iraq using these weapons against coalition forces or civilian populations.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the extent to which the suffering of the Kuwaiti population to which he referred in his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 64, has been increased by the effect of allied bombardment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 18 February, at column 64.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 64, whether any military objectives have been discussed with Israel beyond those laid down by the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Israel is not a member of the coalition in the Gulf and is not involved in the action to implement the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions British air sorties over Iraq and Kuwait have missed intended military targets and hit attendant civilian areas causing deaths and injuries to civilians; and what steps the British military commanders in Saudi Arabia have taken to avoid such civilian casualties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is allied policy to attack only military targets and facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Great care continues to be taken during these attacks, both in the tactics and the weapons used, to minimise the risk of causing civilian casualties. Only a
  387
  minority of the precision-guided munitions used by the RAF are assessed to have missed their intended target. There are indications that most of these have fallen well away from inhabited areas. Any civilian casualties that may have resulted are greatly regretted.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he now has on the number of consecutive days prior to the bombing of the Al-Amariyah bunker that it had been used for the protection of civilians.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. The United States has made it clear that the bunker would not have been attacked if it had been known that civilians were inside.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 19 February 1991,Official Report, column 134, if he will set out the evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons that are capable of polluting the Gulf region; and when Her Majesty's Government reached the conclusion that Iraq has a nuclear weapons capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to assess that Iraq is not currently capable of constructing a nuclear explosive device.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of forces each country has(a) committed to service and (b) promised are available to the coalition forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 12 February, at columns 382–83. The precise natue of the national contributions to the coalition force in the Gulf is a matter for the Governments concerned.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will supply a copy of the specification for facilities for the quality assurance unit to the Teesside development corporation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A summary of area requirements sub-divided by category was sent to Teesside development corporation on 25 January 1991. Additional data were passed to Teesside development corporation on 28 January 1991.

  Quality Assurance Unit
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimate of the cost of relocating his Department's quality assurance unit to(a) Preston Farm, Stockton-on-Tees, (b) ICI Billingham and (c) Portland in Dorset.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department is currently reassessing the scope of work to be relocated and the feasibility and likely cost of a number of locations. Current studies will be completed as soon as possible.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist to allow families resident in the United Kingdom to visit prisoners of war; and whether he has plans to alter the present arrangement.
  388
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Suitable arrangements are being made to allow visits by the close families of the Iraqi prisoners of war held at Rollestone camp. These will begin shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  White Collar Crime
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to meet the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss the prosecution of white collar crime; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I expect to meet the director again shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the state of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service continues to strengthen both in numbers, effectiveness, and the working relationships with other agencies. The Crown prosecution service warmly welcomes the report of the working group on pre-trial issues.

  Land Access
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to implement the Law Commission's recommendations on access to neighbours' land.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have accepted the recommendations contained in the Law Commission's report "Rights of Access to Neighbouring Land" (Law Corn. No. 151), which they will seek to implement when parliamentary time allows.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how catchment areas for jury service are determined; and whether there are circumstances in which those summoned for jury service can opt to fulfil their duties within adjacent catchment areas;

  (2) what measures are taken when females are asked to undertake jury service to ensure that there is (a) a limit to the hours they need to be away from their homes, (b) coverage for any homework and child care responsibilities they might normally undertake and (c) that they are not vulnerable by having to resort to public transport at unsociable hours;

  (3) what consideration is taken into account in determining whether a person is to be summoned to undertake jury service of (a) the distances they are required to travel to court, (b) the availability of public transport facilities and (c) the length of time a juror will need to be away from their home.

  The Attorney-General
  The Juries Act 1974 provides that the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the convenience of persons summoned and to their respective places of residence and in particular to the desirability of selecting jurors from within reasonable daily travelling distance of the court which they are to attend. The area
  389
  from which jurors are summoned to attend a particular location of the Crown Court usually coincides with the petty sessional areas from which the persons are normally committed for trial to that location when charged with a class 4 offence. However, jurors are normally only summoned from those parts of the catchment area which are within one or two hours travelling time. The court day normally begins at 10.30 am and concludes at about 4.30 pm and although they are normally expected to attend some time in advance jurors are usually away from their homes or places of work for a maximum of about nine hours. This, of course, varies with the length of the court day and the actual travelling time for a particular juror. No special arrangements are made for females who are performing this important public duty to which all those eligible are expected to contribute.

  Where public transport is not easily accessible jurors may receive an enhanced rate for use of a private vehicle. Those who cannot reasonably use public transport and do not have their own transport may, of course, apply for excusal. There is no provision for a juror to opt to attend a court which has an adjacent catchment area.

  Those with young children are entitled to receive jurors allowances including financial loss allowance in the same way as any other juror. Financial loss allowance is paid where a juror, in consequence of attendance has incurred any expenditure (other than travelling and subsistence costs which are paid as separate allowances) which he or she would not otherwise incur including any expenditure on child care costs or any loss of earnings or benefit. There is, however, an overall maximum of £35·30 per day which may be paid in respect of financial loss for the first 10 days of service. This increases thereafter to £70·60.

  Any person may apply for excusal from jury service and summoning officers are instructed to treat with sympathy applications on the grounds of the need to care for young children.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give by year the number of court actions for mortgage arrears or repossessions, by petty sessions division, since 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  Mortgage possession actions are a civil matter and as such come within the jurisdiction of the Chancery Division of the High Court and the county courts in England and Wales which are divided into six circuits.

  The number of mortgage possession actions issued in the county courts since 1987 were:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Midland and Oxford

  18,123

  13,965

  17,075

  28,651

  North Eastern

  11,248

  10,866

  10,656

  13,331

  Northern

  12,276

  11,547

  10,771

  13,818

  South Eastern (London)

  5,487

  5,673

  9,849

  19,963

  South Eastern (Provinces)

  17,854

  17,080

  26,135

  42,684

  Wales and Chester

  6,443

  6,080

  6,189

  9,477

  Western

  7,749

  7,444

  10,743

  17,554

  Total

  79,180

  72,655

  91,418

  145,478

  The number of writs for mortgage possession issued in the Chancery Division of the High Court since 1987 were:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1,203

  1,206

  1,981

  2,818

  390
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give by year the number of court actions for mortgage arrears or repossessions in the Mansfield court area since 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage possession actions issued in Mansfield county court since 1987 were:

  Number

  1987

  518

  1988

  411

  1989

  445

  1990

  664

THE ARTS

  British National Bibliography
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the number of titles included in the British National Bibliography in each of the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of titles included in the British National Bibliography is as follows:

  Source of information

  Year

  Number

  Estimate based on books on the on-line file published in that year

  1960

  18,892

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1970

  28,042

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1980

  41,043

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1985

  38,997

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1986

  27,513

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1987

  50,924

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1988

  60,175

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1989

  53,902

  Number added to the on-line file in that year

  1990

  61,053

  Libraries and Information Services Council
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the reports produced by the Libraries and Information Services Council for England in each year from 1986 to 1990.

  Mr. Renton
  The Library and Information Services Council has produced the following reports:

  Published by

  1986

  The future development of libraries and information services: progress through planning and partnership

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 11 430011 9

  391

  Published by

  Library and Information Services in 1985: Review by the Library and Information Services Council (included in Report by the Minister for the Arts on Library and Information Matters during 1985)

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 10 223486 8

  Professional education and training for library and information work: a review by the Library and Information Services Council

  Library Association Publishing Limited

  ISBN

  0 85365 707 6

  1987

  Joint Enterprise: Roles and Relationships of the Public and Private Sectors in the Provision of Library and Information Services

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 11 430016 X

  Joint enterprise: Roles and Relationships of the Public and Private sectors in the Provision of Library and Information Services. Report of a seminar held on Tuesday 21 July 1987.

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  Library and Information Services in 1986: Review by the Library and Information Services Council (included in Report by the Minister for the Arts on Library and Information Matters during 1986)

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 10 225287 4

  1988

  Financing Our Public Library Service: LISC's Response

  J Whitaker and Sons

  ISBN

  0 85021 195 6

  Library and Information Services in 1987: Review by the Library and Information Services Council (included in Report by the Minister for the Arts on Library and Information Matters during 1987)

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 10 233288 6

  1989

  The Minister for the Arts' Statement on Public Library Policy: LISC's Response

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  Library and Information Services in 1988: Review by the Library and Information Services Council (included in Report by the Minister for the Arts on Library and Information Matters during 1988)

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 10 223689 5

  Role of Government in relation to the co-ordination of library and information services

  limited circulation

  1990

  Library and Information Services in 1989: Review by the Library and Information Services Council (included in Report by the Minister for the Arts on Library and Information Matters during 1989)

  HMSO

  ISBN

  0 10 222290 8

  Public Library Services for Children and Young People: A Statistical Survey

  British Library

  ISBN

  0 7123 3195 6

PRIME MINISTER

  Norwegian Prime Minister
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what was discussed at his meeting with his Norwegian counterpart on 13 February.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 February at column 223.

  Street lighting
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to improve co-ordination between the Home Office and Departments of Environment and Transport to identify where early action can be taken to reduce the public's fear of, and to help prevent, crime by improving the standard of street lighting in towns; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Home Office has just received a first draft of a report of a major research study undertaken by the University of Southampton to assess the impact of improved streetlighting on crime and the fear of crime in the London borough of Wandsworth. The results are being considered. The Home Office is also engaged in a monitoring exercise on the link between lighting improvements and crime in four urban areas. When all the relevant information is to hand Home Office Ministers will consider, in conjunction with other Departments as appropriate, what further action is necessary to try and reduce the public's fear of crime.

  German Chancellor
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed during his meeting with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn on 11 February.

  The Prime Minister
  Chancellor Kohl and I discussed a number of current issues, including the Gulf, relations with the Soviet Union and European Community affairs. I look forward to developing our close relationship.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his progress in preparing a contingency plan to deal with the effects of any future nuclear accident overseas following the parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 30 June 1987,Official Report, columns 65–67.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, announced in January 1988 that proposals for implementing the national response plan had been finalised. Details of the proposals have been published in a booklet: "The National Response Plan and Radiation Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET). A Statement of Proposals" published by HMSO, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The radiation monitors for the first phase of the RIM NET system have been in operation since June 1988, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making an announcement shortly with regard to the award of the contract for installing phase 2 of RIMNET.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his office has been consulted about the proposed 13 per cent. increase in domestic electricity prices.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to receive and consider the companies' proposals, and to satisfy himself that they are consistent with the companies' licence requirements.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he, or his officials, had with the deputy director-general of the BBC on 13 February concerning BBC news coverage of the casualties caused to Iraqi civilians by allied air raids on Baghdad.

  The Prime Minister
  There is contact on a regular basis between my office and the media on a variety of subjects, including the coverage of the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if President Bush contacted Her Majesty's Government prior to his speech in Massachussets on 15 February calling for the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein; and what is the Government's policy in relation to the President of Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy towards Iraq is to secure full, immediate and unconditional compliance with the Security Council resolutions.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress of military action to liberate Kuwait in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

  The Prime Minister
  The military action to free Kuwait is making steady progress, while attempting to avoid civilian casualties so far as possible. The forces of the multinational coalition deserve great credit for their performance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take immediate steps to deprive the courts of the power to remand 15 and 16-year-old boys in prison.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 4 February, we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals for reforming the arrangements for the remand of alleged juvenile offenders. We propose to end the remand to prison custody of 15 and 16-year-old boys, as soon as enough places in local authority secure accommodation are available.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement outlining the current practice in respect of allowing the staff of the Metropolitan police time off in working hours for sporting and leisure activities;

  (2) what was the highest total number of hours given in time off for leisure of sporting activities to any member of the Metropolitan police force in 1990;

  (3) how many working hours were lost in the Metropolitan police force in 1990 because of sporting and leisure activities; and what was the cost to public funds;

  (4) if he will list the various sporting and leisure activities which the staff of the Metropolitan police force had time off work for last year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Deputy Commissioner has told me that officers representing the Metropolitan police at 394
  first or second team level, at sports affiliated to the Metropolitan Police Athletic Association are allowed up to four hours once a week in duty time to take part in matches, subject to the exigencies of duties. The sports involved are as listed.

  American Football

  Angling

  Archery

  Association Football

  Athletics and cross country

  Badminton Basketball

  Billiards and Snooker

  Bowling

  Bridge

  Canoeing

  Chess

  Cricket

  Cycling

  Darts

  Fencing

  Flying

  Golf

  Hockey

  Judo

  Lawn Tennis

  Male Voice Choir

  Martial Arts

  Karate

  Kung Fu

  Aikido

  Kendo

  Motor Sport

  Rallies

  Motor Cycle

  Racing

  Old Vehicles

  Mountaineering

  Netball

  Race Walking

  Rowing

  Rugby Football

  Rugby League

  Sailing

  Shooting

  Skiing

  Squash Racquets

  Sub-Aqua

  Swimming

  Water Polo

  Table Tennis

  Ten-pin bowling

  Triathlon

  Tug of War

  Volleyball

  Weightlifting

  Wrestling

  The Deputy Commissioner does not hold centrally the other information requested, which could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Gambling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to outlaw the advertising of gambling and amusement coin-operated slot machines in such a way as to promote the exploitation of young people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The results of the Home Office research study "Amusement Machines Dependency and Delinquency", published in July 1988, provided no grounds to justify additional controls on amusement-with-prizes and other coin-operated amusement machines. As regards "jackpot" machines, these are permitted only On premises either licensed or registered under the Gaming
  395
  Act 1968 to which young people do not normally have access and which are already subject to controls on advertising.

  Remand Prisoners, Manchester
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions have been held on the impact on the effectiveness of Greater Manchester police as a result of extra duties relating to the holding of prisoners in police cells and as to what effect it will have on the prisoners, their families, and on solicitors and the probation service; and what discussions there have been about finding alternative accommodation;

  (2) what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester Police about the number of people expected to be held in police cells in Greater Manchester for each of the next three years; how much this is expected to cost in police overtime; and how much will be spent in improving police cells during that period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials are in daily contact with the Greater Manchester police with a view to minimising the use of police cells for prisoners and any impact on police effectiveness, the prisoners, their families, solicitors and the probation service. The elimination of the problem depends on the provision of new or refurbished accommodation and the resolution of industrial relations difficulties in certain prisons in the north-west, where I hope that staff will note the comments of Lord Justice Woolf in his report that is being published today. The prison service is also actively reviewing the use of the prison estate in order to make the most effective use of the available accommodation. It is not possible to estimate centrally the extent to which police overtime may continue to be needed, and the amount to be spent on improving police cells is a matter for the police authority to determine in relation to other priorities. The costs incurred by the Greater Manchester police in keeping in police cells people who should be in prison are reimbursed by the prison service.

  Escaped Detainees
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether Molly Donalds, Karen Rhoden, and Patricia Weir, who escaped from Drake Hall on 24 January 1989, have since been recaptured;

  (2) whether Ikaete Margarita Jackson, Salamat Oliuvag-Benigun, and Florence Omawuaye Asore, who escaped from East Sutton Park in January 1989, have since been recaptured.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. These six women are still unlawfully at large.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when new evidence is due to be issued about the categorisation and allocation of female prisoners to penal establishments; what factors gave rise to the review; whether it will consider the large numbers of absconders from open prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Guidance will be issued to governors shortly, following an examination of procedures which 396
  was prompted by the need to establish a more systematic and consistent basis for allocating female prisoners, particularly as between closed and open establishments. The risk of absconding is an important factor to be taken into account in considering an individual's suitability for open conditions.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Concessionary Fuel
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) following the reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley on 31 January,Official Report, column 633, concerning concessionary fuel, what action has been taken by British Coal to inform and give advice to concessionaires who have accepted the lump sum offer;

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 31 January, Official Report, column 633, on concessionary fuel, what action his Department has taken in conjunction with British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Officials contacted British Coal as soon as they became aware that a lump-sum option was being offered to recipients of cash-in-lieu of concessionary coal. That contact has been followed up with a letter confirming the importance of concessionaires obtaining benefit advice before making a decision. The Department will also be issuing appropriate guidance to Social Security offices and local authorities. We understand that British Coal is currently considering its position.

  Pension Deductions
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners during each of the last five years for which figures are readily available have had sums deducted from their pensions in respect of accommodation or national health service treatment after the statutory six weeks stay in national health service hospitals; and what was the total sum received by the national health service in consequence of these deductions during each of these years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures are not available in the precise form requested. However, data are available on the number of people counted on specified dates in the past five years who had their benefit reduced as a result of receiving in-patient treatment under the national health service. The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  31 March 1986

  76,450

  30 September 1987

  73,250

  31 March 1988

  68,990

  31 March 1989

  66,220

  31 March 1990

  60,590

  The money by which a pensioner's benefit is reduced is not paid directly to the national health service but remains within the national insurance fund which helps fund the NHS. In 1989–90 the fund paid £4·06 billion towards the cost of the NHS.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the relative entitlements of(a) a widow who has paid full national insurance contributions for 35

  397
  years and then becomes unemployed and (b) a widow in the same position who has never paid national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is as follows:

  Widow (a)

  If claims and satisfies conditions, payable rate of unemployment benefit reduced by amount of widows benefit (excluding additional pension).

  Widow (b)

  Not entitled to unemployment benefit. May be entitled to widows benefit based on late husband's contribution record.

  Both have possible entitlement to income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for how many years an individual has to pay full national insurance contributions to qualify for a state pension(a) in full and (b) other specific categories of pension.

  Mr. Jack
  To qualify for a 100 per cent. category A basic retirement pension a person must have paid full rate contributions for approximately nine-tenths of their working life. The working life is normally calculated as 49 years for a man and 44 years for a woman, but is reduced in certain circumstances, such as where home responsibilities protection applies. If the contribution record is insufficient to give the full rate, basic pension may be paid on a pro-rata basis at rates varying between 25 per cent. and 100 per cent. Below 25 per cent. no basic pension is payable.

  Other specific categories of retirement pensions are category B for a wife, widow or widower derived from their spouses contributions and calculated on a similar basis and categories C and D non-contributory pensions for elderly people, which have a residence rather than a contributory requirement. Further details on the entitlement conditions for all state retirement pensions can be found in leaflet NP46, which is available in the Library.

  Local Offices (Industrial Action)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what areas of work were affected, or not covered at all, as a result of the recent industrial action in(a) Wallasey, (b) Stockton, (c) Redcar, (d) Doncaster, (e) Hull, (f) Leicester, Yeoman Street, (g) Tottenham, (h) Ilford, (i) Bloomsbury, (j) Kensington and (k) Camberwell local offices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As can only be expected when industrial action has been taken, all areas of work were affected to some degree in the local offices mentioned and local management had to prioritise work accordingly. The prompt payment of benefits remained the top priority for all these offices. Every effort was made by management and staff to ensure that their offices remained open to the public and to provide a telephone service (although this was necessarily limited in some cases).

  Liable Relative Work
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by region, the allocated number of staff days for liable relative work during the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990; and what was the number used.
  398
  Miss Widdecombe
  The staff days allocated and used for liable relative work during the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1990 for each region are in the table.

  The figures are obtained from the Department's monthly statistical returns. Caution needs to be applied in making direct comparisons between allocations and usage. Allocations include management and common services (typists etc) which may not be included in liable relative usage figures.

  Region

  Allocated

  Used

  North East

  59,634

  42,249

  Midlands

  57,789

  35,052

  London North

  60,984

  34,951

  London South

  65,241

  29,866

  Wales and South West

  45,423

  30,018

  North West

  48,591

  33,337

  Scotland

  36,126

  26,196

  Local Office, Norcross
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many forms DS 1060 were sent out by his Department's office at Norcross, Blackpool, in the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1990.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by his Department's office at Norcross, Blackpool, to answer a letter from(a) a member of the public and (b) an hon. Member.

  Miss Widdecombe
  (a) A quality assessment study has just been completed at North Fylde central office, which includes Norcross, and this shows that in relation to inquiries by members of the public 62 per cent. of letters were answered in less than three weeks. The study shows an improvement over the findings in the last quality assessment exercise. Further positive efforts to improve this aspect of customer service will continue and the results will be monitored. This study also showed that 78 per cent. of those questioned considered the quality of service given to be good or very good.

  (b) The precise information is not available in the form requested. However, across the span of the five different benefits the current average lies in the range of five to 12 working days.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instigate a review of the level of performance of his Department's office at Norcross, Blackpool.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The North Fylde office at Blackpool is responsible for processing a wide range of diverse benefits each of which is regularly monitored to establish performance levels. Where deficiencies are shown management action is taken to improve the situation. In the case of a major problem recourse to a full review is available to management and such a step has recently been taken in relation to the War Pensions area of work. We are content therefore that satisfactory performance control mechanisms exist at the North Fylde offices.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many files have been recorded as lost at his Department's office at Norcross, Blackpool, in 1990.
  399
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of people who(a) were entitled to and (b) claimed severe weather payments in 1986–87 and, so far as the information is available, in the current winter; and how many in each case were pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  We estimate that about 2·2 million households are eligible to claim cold weather payments this winter, of whom 1·25 million are pensioner households. Information on claims made this winter is not yet available.

  Cold weather payments in 1986–87 were made under the previous scheme. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray, (Mrs. Ewing), on 14 February, at col 583, which lists the number of payments. Details are not available of the claims made, or of the numbers of people eligible for payments.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were made each day from 1 February.

  Mr. Scott
  Information regarding the number of cold weather payments made is collected each calendar month. When it becomes available, the information for February will be placed in the Library.

  Table A

  Research currently underway

  Project

  Cost

  Completion due

  (£ thousands)

  Maternity rights and benefits

  144

  Final report awaited

  Consumer views of the attendance allowance medical examination

  In-house

  Completed: final report received

  Invalid care allowance

  142

  Completed: final report received

  Disability working allowance research

  32

  April 1991

  Survey of incomes in and out of work2—Econometric analysis of durations

  67

  Early 1992

  Survey of incomes in and out of work—further analysis of attitude data

  10

  Autumn 1991

  Survey of incomes in and out of work—replacement ratio analysis

  In-house

  Autumn 1991

  Severe hardship payments for 16/17 year olds

  119

  Final report awaited

  Impact of family credit

  204

  August 1992

  National child development survey—5th sweep

  1175

  July 1993

  Operation of the social fund

  330

  December 1991

  Survey of social fund review procedures

  110

  April 1991

  Survey of credit and debt

  111

  April 1991

  Preliminary study of people leaving certain long-stay institutions

  5

  Completed: Final report recently received

  Improvements to family expenditure survey grossing up procedures

  30

  June 1991

  Family credit and the self-employed

  131

  March 1993

  Actively seeking work provisions

  35

  Awaiting final report

  British household panel study

  1125

  March 1995

  Survey of retirement and retirement plans

  828

  Autumn 1991

  Analysis of data from the survey of retirement, including econometric modelling

  54

  December 1992

  Consumer perceptions of personal pensions

  26

  Completed: final report recently received

  British social attitudes survey 1991, 1993, 1994

  160

  Late 1992 (for 1991 survey)

  OPCS omnibus survey

  141

  May 1991

  Information needs of informal advisers

  39

  Completed: report recently received

  Forms design

  70

  October 1991

  400
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the additional cost if the cold weather payments were paid to those pensioners who receive(a) £20 a week above the income support maximum and (b) £10 a week above that level.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 15 February 1991]: The estimated costs are for (a) £5·5 million per week and for (b) £4 million per week.

  Note: These costs are for payments to those benefit units which have at least one member who is 60 years or over and capital under £1000. These estimates assume all those entitled to a payment make a claim.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–87–88 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the research projects(a) currently underway and (b) planned by the Department in all areas excluding invalidity benefit, giving the title of the research, its estimated cost and its completion date in each case.

  Mr. Scott
  The tables set out the details of research under way and planned by the Department. A number of additional studies are under consideration to start in 1991–92 depending on available resources but details of these have not yet been fully considered.
  401

  Project

  Cost(£ thousands)

  Completion due

  Evaluation of consumer consultations in the social security system

  42

  Final report awaited

  Hard to place residents of resettlement units

  47

  April 1992

  Survey of admissions to London resettlement units

  In-house

  July 1991

  Assessment of women users of resettlement units and their needs

  2

  June 1991

  Housing benefit reviews

  100

  Completed: final report received

  1 DSS contribution to joint funded research.

  2 Main stage of the survey of incomes in and out of work completed summer 1990. Results published in: Erens, B and Hedges, B: Survey of Incomes In and Out of Work (SCPR, 1990) and Garman, A and Redmond, G: The Changing characteristics of unemployed men, Employment Gazette, September 1990.

  Table B

  Planned research

  Project

  Anticipated cost(£ thousands)

  Anticipated completion due

  Changes in income and benefit status over time

  103

  To be decided

  Structure of employers' national insurance contributions

  To be decided

  To be decided

  Survey of incomes in and out of work—takeup of in-work benefit

  In-house

  Autumn 1991

  Survey of incomes in and out of work—Econometric analysis of partner activity

  16

  December 1991

  Survey of occupational pensions

  Awaiting costings

  To be decided

  Information needs of and access to service by minority ethnic groups

  50

  To be decided

  Information needs of and access to service by people with disabilities

  50

  September 1991

  Annual independent national customer survey

  To be decided

  September 1991

  Customer perceptions of resettlement units

  37

  July 1991

  Effect of benefit availability on housing decisions

  60

  To be decided

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions have not been answered because of disproportionate cost over the last year; and if he will list those that could now be answered due to the effectiveness of the operational strategy of computerisation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There have been 33 questions receiving such answers over the last year. It would not be possible to undertake the type of analysis requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money has been allocated for loans and grants under the social fund for 1990–91 in each district council area of Wales;

  (2) if he will publish the numbers of successful claims for (a) grants and (b) loans under the social fund as a percentage of the total number of applicants for each, in every district council area of Wales in 1990;

  (3) of the successful social fund applications for (a) grants and (b) loans, how many were allocated to (i) pensioners, (ii) single parents, (iii) disabled people, (iv) families and (v) single people for each district council area in Wales during 1990;
  402
  (4) how much money was (a) allocated and (b) utilised as (i) loans and (ii) grants under the social fund in each district council area in Wales during 1990; and in each instance what amount of money was set aside for cases which are pending in 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not collected according to district council areas. Statistics for all local offices of the Department on(a) allocations for loans and grants, (b) applications processed and awards made, and (c) expenditure, are in the Library.

  Awards are made from the year's budget in which they are paid, not the budget for the date of application.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those in receipt of income support are having deductions made to the repayment of social fund loans; and what is the average level of repayments by quintile to each of his Department's offices in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of applicants repaying social fund loans at the end of November 1990. It is not possible to provide quintile figures on repayments.

  Number

  Chesterfield

  1,338

  Derby (Becket Street)

  630

  Derby (Heritage Gate)

  394

  403

  Number

  Derby (London Road)

  980

  Ilkeston

  646

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those in receipt of income support are having deductions made for the repayment of social fund loans in each of his Department's offices in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Scott
  The information provided is for the quarter ending in November 1990.

  Per cent.

  Chesterfield

  7·6

  Derby (Becket Street)

  5·4

  Derby (Heritage Gate)

  6·2

  Derby (London Road)

  7·8

  Ilkeston

  9·4

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local offices in Nottingham and the United Kingdom are currently giving community care grants from the social fund to(a) high priority applications only, (b) high and medium priority applications only and (c) high, medium and low priority applications.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has consulted small firm organisations on the new instructions to be issued to employers following the implementation of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  We consulted the National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the Confederation of British Industry on the draft statutory sick pay leaflet on small employers relief (NI 278). A number of useful comments were made and incorporated in the leaflet, which is now being distributed to all employers.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to add further categories of workers to those who can be assessed for industrial injuries disablement benefits when it is established they suffer from industrial deafness, including those whose industrial deafness arose from work in the coal mining industry.

  Mr. Scott
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of occupations under the industrial injuries scheme. Work involving the use of pneumatic percussive tools for mining coal and work in the immediate vicinity of these tools when in operation are already prescribed occupations for occupational deafness purposes.

  Benefit Uprating
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the reason for the interval between the uprating announcement and the payment of uprated benefits; and if he will make a statement.
  404
  Miss Widdecombe
  The administrative complexities of changing the level of payment for several million beneficiaries receiving a wide range of different benefits means that a considerable period of time is required between the announcement and payment of uprated benefits.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefits have been uprated in line with inflation since 1979; and which have not.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are now spending more on social security, in real terms, than ever before. Expenditure increased by £14–5 billion in real terms at 1990–91 prices between 1979–80 and 1990–91, a real increase of 35 per cent.

  Taking the period since 1979 as a whole, all weekly benefit rates have been uprated in line with inflation, or better in some cases, with the exceptions of child benefit, statutory sick pay and sickness benefit. These have been uprated but not always in line with inflation.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he hopes to conclude his inquiries into the error in calculation of family credit for Mr. Mike Rawlinson of Totnes, South Devon (Ref. YR 008417C) and the delay in vetting the claim; when payment, together with arrears will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A revised maximum award of family credit of £54·15 a week is being issued today, including all the arrears due. Entitlement could not be recalculated until necessary further information regarding Mr. Rawlinson's employment had been received. I shall write to my hon. Friend with details of this case.

  Mean-tested Benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further the answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 February 1991 Offical Report, columns 105–6, what contribution each means-tested benefit makes to the £0·9 billion difference between (a) and (b).

  Miss Widdecombe
  The savings which would be made by the reduced payment of income-related benefits would approximately be of the following magnitude: income support, £250 million; housing benefit, £330 million and community charge benefit: £180 million. Where income-related benefits are raised to prevent loss of entitlement, there are some extra costs, approximately £100 million, associated with an increase in pensioner premiums.

  Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures exist to credit a pension to someone working in the United Kingdom who is(a) a United States citizen and (b) a citizen of another EC country.

  Mr. Jack
  A United States citizen who has worked and paid social security contributions in the United Kingdom will receive a retirement pension under United Kingdom domestic law if he has paid sufficient contributions to qualify. If he has not paid enough contributions for this
  405
  purpose but he has also been covered by the United States insurance scheme, the social security convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America provides for insurance in both countries to be combined to help him to satisfy the qualifying conditions for a United Kingdom pension. Any United Kingdom pension resulting from this calculation will be payable in the proportion that the United Kingdom insurance bears to the combined insurance.

  The United Kingdom pension for a European Community national who has worked in more than one EC country is calculated in accordance with Council regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71. The social security records of all the EC countries concerned are combined as though they were United Kingdom insurance and the pension rate is then calculated in proportion to the actual United Kingdom insurance in the combined total. A separate calculation is made of entitlement under domestic law alone and the United Kingdom pension is then paid at the higher of the two results. Special rules exist for cases where the person has been insured for less than a year in any one EC country.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue to every state earnings-related pension holder an annual statement which will include the amount of pension to be paid on retirement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does notify certain national insurance contributors if their national insurance record is not sufficient in any one tax year for that year to count towards their basic pension entitlement, but there are no plans to issue annual statements to state earnings-related pension holders.

  People are able to obtain details of their current or future possible state retirement pension entitlement by requesting a pension forecast from the retirement pension forecast unit at Newcastle.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to allowing state earnings-related pensions participants to make additional voluntary contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Although people who have a reduced basic pension entitlement may, under certain conditions, be able to pay extra voluntary contributions to enhance their entitlement, there are no current plans to extend this to state earnings-related pensions.

  1 Average weekly earnings adult males

  Weekly upper earnings limit

  Upper earnings limit as a percentage of average earnings

  £

  £

  April

  1978

  89·10

  120·00

  1978–79

  134·7

  1979

  101·40

  135·00

  1979–80

  133·1

  1980

  123·80

  165·00

  1980–81

  133·3

  1981

  140·50

  200·00

  1981–82

  142·3

  1982

  154·50

  220·00

  1982–83

  142·4

  1983

  164·70

  235·00

  1983–84

  142·7

  1984

  178·80

  250·00

  1984–85

  139·8

  1985

  192·40

  265·00

  1985–86

  137·7

  1986

  207·50

  285·00

  1986–87

  137·3

  1987

  224·00

  295·00

  1987–88

  131·7

  1988

  245·80

  305·00

  1988–89

  124·1

  1989

  269·50

  325·00

  1989–90

  120·6

  1990

  295·60

  350·00

  1990–91

  118·4

  1 Average weekly full-time earnings of all adult males.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.
  406
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons over the age of 60 years are in receipt of state retirement pensions or other equivalent income; and how this figure would be affected if the entitlement to a pension was given to men who retired at 60 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 21 February 1991]: There are aproximately 10 million people in receipt of retirement pension. It is estimated that there are around 1·4 million men between the age of 60 and 64 who might qualify for retirement pension if pension age for men is reduced to 60.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what saving for the national insurance fund has been achieved by transferring out expenditure on industrial injury benefit, maternity pay and statutory sick pay;

  (2) which benefits have been transferred since 1979 to the Consolidated Fund from the national insurance fund.

  Mr. Jack
  The Social Security Act 1990 provided for expenditure on industrial injuries benefits to be met directly from the consolidated fund and for the national insurance fund to be reimbursed from the consolidated fund for the costs of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, these benefits being non-contributory. The relevant amounts for the 1991 tax year are estimated to be £574 million in respect of industrial injuries benefit, £956 million in respect of statutory sick pay and £332 million in respect of statutory maternity pay, making a total of £1·862 billion.

  Since 1979 there have been no other transfers of benefit costs from the national insurance fund to the consolidated fund.

  Male Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of average male earnings the upper earnings limit represents; and what percentage it represented in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Jack: The information requested is in the table.

  Non-contributory benefits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost implications of abolishing non-contributory benefits and replacing them with their nearest contributory equivalent.

  Mr. Scott
  Many of the non-contributory benefits have neither direct nor approximate contributory equivalents. Even where there is a near equivalent, for example severe disablement allowance and invalidity benefit, it is not 408
  possible to abolish that benefit and transfer recipients to the contributory benefit without breaching the contributory principle, or diluting it to the point where it becomes meaningless. Such beneficiaries are very often receiving a non-contributory benefit because of failure to satisfy the contribution conditions for a contributory benefit. The scenario implied in the question would require a fundamental change to the social security system for which no cost estimates are available.

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

The Territorial Army
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the future strength of the Territorial Army.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, although the reserves and the regular army cannot be considered in isolation, we must first be sure of the composition of the future regular army before we draw up final plans for the reserves. As noble Lords will know, due to Operation Granby, we are not yet in a position to take final decisions on the future size and shape of the army.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he not agree that our Territorial Army is regarded as an efficient reserve army? Is he further aware that the Territorial Army associations are showing some concern that there may be some reduction in their numbers? Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no reduction of the Territorial Army until a review has been thoroughly carried out? Perhaps the views of the territorial associations may be considered.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, any possible reduction in the size of the Territorial Army is totally speculative at the moment. The matter is under consideration, as is the matter of the size of the regular army. Certainly this country has played a wonderful part in campaigns with the aid of our Territorial Army. I agree completely with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. As regards the future, the precise timetable for the implementation of decisions will depend upon many factors, including the outcome of the Gulf crisis, discussions with our NATO allies and developments as regards the Soviet Union.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in considering what should be done with regard to the Territorial Army, will the Government bear very much in mind the magnificent response of those territorials, particularly on the medical side, who have been called up in the past few weeks and months? Will the Government also bear in mind therefore the great value of a strong Territorial Army to this country? Is my noble friend aware that it is with some embarrassment that I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think it is altogether a bad thing to be in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, from time to time, particularly as regards the good and apposite remarks the noble Lord made about the Territorial Army. The
762
Territorial Army has played a great part so far in the Gulf conflict. No doubt the Territorial Army will continue to play a magnificent part in that conflict throughout its duration.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that when the regular army is called, sometimes at short notice, to take part in activities overseas, it is reassuring to have a reserve army of territorials at home to replace soldiers who have had to go abroad?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend is saying. I can inform him that there are approximately 600 members of the Territorial Army currently serving in the Gulf.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is great concern in the ranks of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve at the outcome of the discussions within the Ministry on Options for Change? Those in the TAVR fear the worst. Although the discussions are in abeyance because of the Gulf crisis, is the Minister aware that if the professionals are to be cut in the search for the peace dividend, that provides a stronger reason why there should be a strong and well trained volunteer reserve force?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there will continue to be a strong and well maintained volunteer reserve force. The future of the reserve force, together with that of the regular army, is being discussed at the moment. I take heed of the remarks of the noble Lord.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not self evident that the size of the army should be decided before the size of the Territorial Army is considered? Surely those matters should go hand in hand. Will the review recognise that the territorials account for less than 3 per cent. of the defence budget and probably represent one of the most cost effective parts of the budget?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can inform the noble Lord that in broad terms the cost of the Territorial Army each year is in the region of some £400 million.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that one obtains eight territorials for the price of one regular soldier? I know one cannot draw an exact equivalent between the two forces, but the territorials represent a remarkable economy of resources. If we are to cut the number of regular soldiers—I think it is very unwise to do so at the moment—then surely we need to increase the number of territorials. The two forces should not be reduced at the same time. If the regulars are to be decreased, the other force should be increased markedly. I hope that the matter can be considered straightaway. Many people wish to volunteer, both for the regular army and for the Territorial Army. It is a shame to turn such people away. The Government should grab the chance of getting good men now.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend has expressed. Every

763
possibility concerning the future of the Territorial Army is being examined. No decisions have yet been made.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the TA council and the TA association do an excellent job and have done so for a very long time? Will he confirm that there are no plans in Options for Change to amalgamate the role of the TA associations with that of the regular army?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, since that lies in the future and no decisions have been made, I cannot confirm or deny any particular proposition.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if changes are to be made will the noble Earl take into consideration the fact that too much ought not to be done until we know the future of SACEUR and the future of NATO? Will his department consider one further important point: that in almost every town hall in the country there is a drill hall?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, says. As I indicated in my original Answer, discussions are taking place with our NATO allies all the time regarding SACEUR.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when the Government consider the future of the Territorial Army will they bear in mind the support that the TA has given to the civil community in tragedies such as the Lockerbie air disaster and the Clapham rail crash? Does he agree that that is a very important role for the Territorial Army?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course. I would add the further example of the events that took place last winter in that unfortunate town on the north coast of Wales.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the versatility of the Territorial Army? Complete units have changed their role in the past. I do not see the connection with the regular army that he has mentioned.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Territorial Army is part of the concept of "one army" which is well known to your Lordships' House.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether sufficient funds are available for modernising, rebuilding and refurbishing various TA centres and headquarters in our towns and cities, which will be needed ever more?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the rebuilding programme is always under review; it is examined closely every year.

Agriculture: EC Expenditure
2.46 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that a senior Treasury Minister will accompany the Minister of
764
Agriculture throughout the proceedings of the meeting of the EC Council of Ministers to be held on 4th and 5th March to consider the Commission's proposals to control the costs of the common agricultural policy, and whether the Treasury will accept full responsibility for any Council agreement that might be reached.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, Ministers attending Councils in Brussels represent the Government, not individual departments. Well-established machinery exists to ensure that the Government's position is properly coordinated beforehand and direct lines are available to deal with any problems that might arise during a Council meeting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, unfortunately the noble Baroness, through no fault of her own, has completely evaded my Question, to which she could have answered yes or no in unequivocal terms. Is she aware that machinery was established by the European Commission in 1987 to ensure that Community expenditure on agriculture was kept under control? Is she further aware that that machinery provided that at meetings where increases in expenditure were envisaged members of the finance committee would attend simultaneously with members of the agriculture committee? In addition is she aware that, in contravention of the agreement reached by the British Prime Minister, Finance and Treasury Ministers have invariably absented themselves from meetings at which expenditure was to be discussed in order that Agriculture Ministers could go home and boast how well they had done for the farmers and Treasury Ministers could evade all responsibility?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I did not reply with a simple no or yes in courtesy to the noble Lord. In answer to the second part of his question, the Minister of Agriculture has been leading the fight in the Agriculture Council against excessive expenditure and for reform of the CAP. He certainly does not absent himself; nor do his colleagues who go to Brussels.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not a novel constitutional departure to suggest that any department of state should accept full responsibility in the shoes of government in a situation such as this, or indeed in any situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, when Ministers speak in Brussels they speak for the Government as a whole. The doctrine of collective responsibility applies in Brussels as well as in your Lordships' House.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, apart from all the constitutional niceties, can the noble Baroness say what action the Government are taking at that meeting to have something done about the £6,000 million worth of fraud a year in respect of the common agricultural policy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is always full consultation between government Ministers before the councils of the European Community and

765
the attending Minister is fully aware of all the policy issues, which include the prevention of fraud against the budget. I should also like to point out that there is a clear commitment on the part of this Government to fight fraud against the European budget.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the European farming budget is increasing by more than 10 per cent., the incomes of British farmers are being reduced and many of them are going out of business? That is done in order to support smaller and less efficient farmers on the Continent, particularly in Germany and France. Under those circumstances do the Government agree that it would be far better if farming policy were repatriated to this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the Commission's willingness to consider radical reform of the CAP but is concerned that current ideas could lead to an increase in CAP expenditure rather than a reduction. We are also concerned about the emphasis on the smallest farmers. In the United Kingdom even small family farms are generally larger than those in other member states and would be likely to fall outside most EC definitions of small farms. Repatriation is not an avenue that the Government favour.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, in view of the substantial increase in the forecast contribution by the United Kingdom to the Community budget for 1990–91, can the noble Baroness say whether Treasury Ministers are satisfied that they are in control of the situation? Secondly, are the Commission's current proposals for the reform of the CAP of such a nature that the United Kingdom in the end may pay more to an agricultural budget which benefits neither United Kingdom farmers nor its consumers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government fully support the need for action to curb expenditure. I believe that I answered the second part of the noble Lord's question in my last answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, how can the Minister say that the Government are in favour of controlling agricultural expenditure when she knows perfectly well that at the meeting of the agriculture ministers to be held on 4th and 5th March some account will have to be taken of the gross excess, this year once again, over the budget limit fixed for the expenditure on agriculture? Will she call upon somebody in the ministry or elsewhere within the Government to read the evidence given to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House by the Commissioner, Mr. Christophersen (House of Lord's Paper No. 14, pages 45 and 46)? Will she then say whether or not the then Prime Minister has been successful in controlling agricultural expenditure and finances within the Community? Will she find out from her right honourable friend the Prime Minister whether he intends to exert any authority whatever over grossly excessive expenditure which falls very heavily indeed upon the United Kingdom taxpayer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no need for the noble Lord to shout at me. The United
766
Kingdom's objectives for CAP reform are to make EC agriculture more market orientated and competitive, to reduce the cost of the CAP, to lead to closer integration between agriculture and the environment and to avoid discrimination between farmers in different member states.

Wales: Resources for Derelict Land Clearance
2.55 p.m.
Baroness White Baroness White asked Her Majesty's Government:
What resources are being made available in Wales under the derelict land programme in 1991–92, and how this compares with current provision.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, provision for derelict land clearance in Wales for 1991–92 will be £27 million—over 10 per cent. more than the £24.5 million budget for the current year. The programme is administered in Wales by the Welsh Development Agency.
Baroness White: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and look forward to further information when she replies to a related Question for Written Answer. Is she aware that I was prompted to table these Questions by the Answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on 7th February by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch? That Written Answer covers nearly two columns of Hansard and, concerns the development land programme exclusively for England. The Question was an open Question, but it was answered with no reference whatever to the problems of Wales. Can the Minister say when we may expect to receive for Wales a report comparable to that for England on which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, based her reply?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have seen that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has made good that error of not mentioning Wales by putting down a Question for Written Answer to that effect even today when she is asking this oral Question. In answer to her supplementary question, a derelict land survey for Wales was approved by the Secretary of State in 1988. The survey is complete and the findings should be published in the spring.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging reply to the Question. Is she aware that it was my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, when he was Secretary of State for Wales and in the aftermath of the Aberfan disaster, who took the decisive step to embark upon a reclamation policy? That was 26 years ago. Can she indicate when that programme is likely to be completed, given the present rate of progress? With regard to my noble friend's supplementary question, can the Minister persuade her ministerial colleagues or the powers that be that, when a functional department in Whitehall takes upon itself to answer a question about the impact of the domestic policy of HMG, it will not ignore its impact on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we shall do our best. With regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, as a result of the survey we shall have a much clearer picture of what remains to be done. The agency hopes to remove a substantial proportion of the remaining visually intrusive dereliction in Wales as a whole by the second half of the mid-1990s. A high priority is attached to removing the scars of industrial dereliction in the valleys, which are potentially a most beautiful part of Wales.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's initial reply to the Question of my noble friend Lady White. Can she tell the House how much derelict land in Wales is owned by British Coal? Secondly, is she aware that there is considerable disquiet in Wales because of the apparent unwillingness of British Coal to sell the land to the Welsh Development Agency and the land reclamation officers? Does she agree that it is absolutely essential for that land to be made available for the development of industry and associated housing in the public interest in Wales?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I should prefer to take advice and write to him. I asked my informers whether opencast coal sites were eligible. Before any opencast coal operation can start, a restoration condition is attached to the required planning permission. On completion of their operations, the operators will restore the land for future use. The WDA would give and has given assistance to historic sites predating such requirements.
Whether that information is useful to the noble Lord, I am not sure. However, in order to do justice to his question, I shall write to him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, all information given by the noble Baroness is always useful. May I assume from what she said that she will look into the allegation that the Welsh Development Agency is finding it extremely difficult to negotiate the sale of derelict land from British Coal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with regard to disposal of land in general by public bodies successive governments have given guidance that the first option for the disposal of such land ought to go to the local authority or public authority acting on its behalf? Why has the position been changed? If it has not been changed, why is it not allowed to do so now?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, your Lordships will understand that I speak of the Welsh situation. I hope that I do not receive complaints from England and Scotland.
The grant is available to local authorities, private bodies and individuals alike for the reclamation of derelict, neglected or unsightly land; that is, land so damaged by past industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment, or
768
land which although capable of some beneficial use is at present uncared for, untidy or in a condition detrimental to the environment.
Local authorities can receive up to a 100 per cent. grant. Individuals, companies, corporations or other bodies receive a grant up to 80 per cent.

Female Circumcision: Illegality
3.5 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidance they have issued to local authorities about the prevention of female circumcision since the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have not previously issued general advice to local authorities on the subject. However, we are about to reissue inter-departmental guidance on inter-agency working in cases of child protection. The new version is being revised to take account of the implementation of the 1989 Children Act, and will draw attention to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most helpful Answer. No doubt she, like many in your Lordships' House, saw the television film last Thursday night. Will the guidance take account of the fact that there is nascent disagreement among local authority officers in different parts of the country? There are those who wish to adopt some forthright programme to protect British children against mutilation; there are others local who still believe that to do so would be in some way racialist.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the BBC programme was both balanced and informative. We hope very much that it will alert many people to the fact that the practice is illegal. However, the guidance being issued will take the form of a general statement. Further thought is being given as to how it can be supported with more detailed advice where necessary. We are consulting the leading voluntary sector organisations such as Forward to ensure that the detail of the advice is adequate in this very difficult area.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before the 1985 Act became law the General Medical Council gave advice to members of the profession in the UK that, whereas there were circumstances when the performance of the operation was indicated on strictly medical grounds, its performance for social, religious or other ritual reasons was in its view unethical? Will she therefore give advice that if there is evidence to support the fact that it is being performed by doctors in the United Kingdom, that should be reported either to the police or to the profession's regulatory body, the General Medical Council?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. That must certainly be so. The practice is now illegal.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Arran will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Gulf. This will be followed by my noble friend the Leader of the House who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on the Woolf Inquiry.
Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House: Motions, 5th March
Tim Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Henley to advance the eight Motions set down in his name from Tuesday, 5th March to Thursday, 28th February.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships are aware that the Government are committed to a radical reform of the system by which child maintenance payments are assessed, collected and enforced. The White Paper Children Come First set out our proposals, and the Bill which I now bring before your Lordships is the fruit of that. It is the result of much collaborative work involving many departments of state. The Bill covers Great Britain, and it is hoped to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland by Order in Council. I particularly hope that your Lordships will allow me, in explaining the Bill's provisions, to concentrate on the main thrust of its proposals. The detail is different in some respects in England, Wales and Scotland, to take account of the distinctive nature of the legal systems in the United Kingdom law districts. There will of course be an opportunity to debate the Bill's detailed provisions when it moves into Committee.
To set the Bill in context, your Lordships will recall that the Government are embarked on a wide-ranging review of all aspects of family law and the way family business is dealt with in the courts. Its first achievement, to which your Lordships gave much time and close attention in the Session before last, is the Children Act 1989, which is to be implemented in October this year. That Act brings together into a single coherent code the law on the physical care and upbringing of children. This Bill, in achieving a similar result for the duty to maintain children, is a natural adjunct to it. Like the Children Act and the rest of the
770
review of family law, it is informed by two central principles or objectives, namely, the giving of priority to the welfare of the child and the primary responsibility of parents for securing that welfare even where the parents' own relationship has broken down.
In many cases the present system of child maintenance does not achieve these objectives. It is operated through the courts under various regimes of statutory discretion as well as through the offices of the Department of Social Security. The effect is that decisions are uncertain and, arguably, inconsistent.
Only 30 per cent. of lone mothers receive regular maintenance for their children. More than 750,000 lone parents depend on income support. Many lone mothers want to go to work, but cannot.
In a great many cases, the maintenance awarded is not paid, or payments fall into arrears and take weeks to re-establish. As part of our strategy for improving the collection and enforcement of maintenance, the Maintenance Enforcement Bill, which your Lordships have been considering, will give the courts new powers to direct that, from the first, maintenance payments may be made by standing order direct to the creditor's bank account, or by attachment of earnings if the debtor is in work. As the reformed system inaugurated by the Child Support Bill will not be fully in place for several years, the Maintenance Enforcement Bill is an important means, within the present system, of quickly addressing one major problem.
Those are some of the problems which our new system is designed to address. There are three key features of the reforms, two of which are implemented by the Child Support Bill. First, child maintenance will be assessed by means of a formula which will produce consistent results. It is based on a maintenance requirement representing the amount needed for the care and maintenance of children, and on the means and circumstances of the parents. A further departure here from the existing system is that a single award will be made covering all qualifying children in a family, rather than there being separate orders for each child, as at present.
Secondly, a child support agency will be established as a next steps agency under the authority of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The agency will trace absent parents, investigate the parents' means and assess, collect and enforce payments of child maintenance. Your Lordships should know that as a next steps agency the agency will have no independent existence in statute. The powers that it will need to do its work are, therefore, expressed as powers of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Thirdly, as part of this package, though not covered by the Bill, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will introduce measures coinciding with the introduction of the maintenance formula to make it easier for lone parents to combine work with the responsibilities of caring for their children. The first £15 of maintenance paid will be ignored for parents receiving family credit, community charge benefit and housing benefit. At the same time, we shall reduce the number of hours of work which qualify for family credit from 24 to 16

771
hours per week. This will apply to all claimants from April 1992 and it will be of particular value to lone parents. These measures will make it easier for parents to gain independence by their own efforts. The choice must be theirs; but we now that many of them want to work and it is right that we should help them to realise their ambitions.
The thrust of the policy of the Child Support Bill is clear. I now propose to turn to a rather fuller account of the main features of that policy as set out in more detail in the Bill.
The opening clauses set out the basic principles; they reflect in law what the Government see as the clear moral duty of parents to maintain their children until they are old enough to look after themselves. Events may change the relationship of the parents to each other but they cannot change the responsibility which parents owe to their children. The child support agency is to be available as a service to nearly all parents and children for tracing the absent parent, investigating the parents' means and for assessing, collecting and enforcing maintenance.
Where the taxpayer is involved—and the cost of income related benefit payments to lone parents has risen from £1.4 billion in 1981–82 to £3·2 billion in 1988–89 at today's prices—we have thought it right that the parent claiming benefit should be under a obligation to make effective use of the services of the child support agency to seek maintenance from an absent parent. Therefore, where a caring parent refuses, without good reason, to fulfil that obligation it will be possible for the amount of her own personal benefit entitlement to be reduced for a specific period. Just as we do not think it right for an absent parent to walk out on his responsibilities—and we are providing that, even if he is on benefit, he will normally be expected to make a small contribution to his maintenance liability—so it is not right that a caring parent should simply choose to pass on the financial responsibility for maintaining her children to taxpayers, many of whom are raising families themselves.
We are of course aware that there will be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable or humane to force the caring parent to seek maintenance; for example, in cases of incest or rape. We are looking very carefully at the circumstances where it would be wrong to impose any sanction and we shall ensure that a range of exceptions will be available to cover such circumstances and that the powers are exercised sensitively.
Your Lordships may be particularly interested in two clauses which provide for the ways in which the new child support agency is to fit in with the existing system of child maintenance. The majority of child maintenance cases will in the end go to the child support agency. But the agency will have a very large number of potential customers—around 2 million—and it would obviously not be possible to take on such a volume of work all at once. The agency should become operational early in 1993, but we shall phase in its jurisdiction and the formula over cases, or classes of cases, over a period of years. We are still
772
considering exactly what the best and fairest approach will be for these arrangements. But one principle is clear; the courts will retain their existing jurisdiction under the existing law over groups of cases until the agency is ready to take them on. Nobody will be deprived of a forum to resolve questions about child maintenance. And we shall do our best to bring cases within the jurisdiction of the agency as quickly as is consistent with providing the quality of service which its customers are entitled to expect.
I have already sought to reassure your Lordships that we are pursuing this initiative because we believe that the majority of child maintenance cases can be assessed fairly and effectively by means of a formula. There are some special cases where modifications will be needed to the precise working of the formula; for example, where a child has a home with both parents. But there are other cases where the courts will still have an important role to play and it may help your Lordships if I briefly explain the relationship between the existing statutory regime and the Bill.
We intend to deal with that relationship by providing, in effect, that periodical maintenance payments for a child may not be sought from an absent parent in the courts under the existing law if such maintenance can be sought through the agency, unless the Bill itself allows for an application to the court. This rule of exclusivity will mean, for example, that stepchildren and other children who for technical reasons are not covered by the Bill will continue to be able to seek maintenance under the law as it now stands. Further, the Bill itself will allow the courts to exercise their existing powers to top up formula awards either to meet educational expenses or in high income cases which are above the upper limit of the formula's operation. For the sake of completeness I should make it clear that the courts' existing powers to order lump sums and to make orders about property for the benefit of the child will remain generally available. The courts will of course continue to exercise all their powers in respect of financial and property arrangements between spouses, including periodical maintenance payments for the spouse.
The Bill provides for the work of the child support agency in assessing maintenance payable and in gathering the information that it needs to do this, and for the making of reassessments and the conduct of reviews and appeals. Assessments of maintenance will be made by officers of the child support agency, to be called child support officers. In making assessments they will be independent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. This will ensure that decisions made about the sums of money to which a person is entitled are separate from the political process and cannot be influenced by it. A chief child support officer will be appointed to advise child support officers on the carrying out of their duties.
Assessments will in general be made on the basis of the full facts. But there will be times when for one reason or another insufficient information is available, perhaps because one of the parties is refusing to supply it. That must not stand in the way of some provision being made for the needs of the children.

773
For that reason the Bill allows for interim assessments to be made. We shall set out in regulations the exact procedures to be followed. However, we envisage that in most cases it will be possible to calculate the amount of the maintenance requirement based on the numbers and ages of the children involved and use that as the basis for the interim assessment until more information is forthcoming.
All of us involved in this initiative are conscious of the need to safeguard confidential personal information. But, as I am sure your Lordships' will appreciate, the agency will need access to some types of information if it is to function effectively. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will set out in regulations who will be expected to furnish information and under what conditions. He will have the power to use information which he has already acquired for the purpose of administering the benefit system. He will also be able to use limited categories of information held by the Inland Revenue for tracing purposes only and to verify some information about parties' incomes by checking with local authorities.
There are some circumstances in which the child support agency will need to disclose information; again the detail will be set out in regulations. But I can confirm that disclosure will not run wider than is strictly necessary for ensuring the effectiveness of the agency's work in recovering the right amount of money at the right time, providing people with an effective right of appeal and for helping the courts in exercising their continuing powers in relation to matters of finance and property on family breakdown. Your Lordships will wish to note that we are taking power to appoint inspectors to seek information from employers about parties to maintenance assessments. These powers closely follow those which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security already has to appoint inspectors for pursuing inquiries about national insurance contributions.
We propose a comprehensive set of provisions enabling maintenance assessments to be revised, reviewed and appealed against. First, assessments will be regularly reviewed to take account of changes in the cost of living and of course of changes in the circumstances of the parties. The Bill provides for that. It also provides for the review of a decision by a child support officer where either of the parties thinks it is wrong. This is designed to offer a quick and easy way of having the decision looked at again and to allow errors to be put right with the minimum of fuss; and of course there will also be provision for further appeals where either or both of the parties is still dissatisfied.
One of the anxieties which our reforms are seeking to address is that, even when maintenance awards are made, the payment arrangements can break down. The ideal situation, where it is possible, is for the parties to agree to pay each other direct by some mutually convenient means; and we have no wish to interfere in that. But there is a range of methods which can help make payment easier or more reliable, and the agency will be able to direct parties to make
774
payments in the most appropriate way, either direct to the caring parent, or, where it seems likely to provide greater reliability, through the agency. It will also be possible to collect payments of arrears of maintenance and in certain circumstances which will be set out in regulations to charge interest on outstanding arrears.
One way of making it more likely that payment will actually be made is to ask the liable person's employer to deduct the amount due at source from his wages (plus an allowance towards the employer's administrative expenses in doing so). The agency will be empowered to make deduction from earnings orders against liable persons both for current maintenance liability and for accumulated arrears. The provision for these orders is along the lines of those in the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971.
Sadly, however, sometimes payment methods do not work and firmer action is needed. We do not, however, think it reasonable that the agency should be able to take further enforcement action purely on its own authority. Provision is therefore made for the agency to be able to apply for a liability order to a magistrates' court and, if that order is granted, to use various enforcement methods available for enforcing civil debt. In cases of wilful refusal or culpable neglect the agency may apply for a warrant to commit the liable person to prison; such committal may be deferred to give him a final chance to come to an agreement about meeting his liability.
Although, as I have already explained, the assessment of other forms of maintenance, for example spousal awards, will stay with the courts, it may well offer a better service to the public if the child support agency can take on collection and enforcement work in these areas in some circumstances. The Bill makes the necessary provisions for this, though we shall need to think carefully about when any such work by the agency might start so as to ensure that the agency is not diverted from its main task of improving arrangements for child maintenance.
I am aware that the Bill contains many technical provisions to which I do not have time to refer in any detail. One consequence of the technical nature of much of the Bill is that it contains, as no doubt your Lordships have noticed, a rather larger than usual number of regulation-making powers. The principles and intentions of the scheme are quite clear on the face of the Bill. However, the great variety of situations to which the scheme is to be applied requires that the detailed provisions are better left to be dealt with by secondary legislation. This controlled use of regulations allows a valuable flexibility within the scheme. Adjustments can be made in the light of the experience in applying the formula and related matters, and most importantly, any unfairness which is uncovered in the operation of the system can be rectified. There will of course be extensive consultation on the content of the regulations, and the most important regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution.
In concluding this speech, I should like to return for a few moments to what I believe to be one of the absolutely central features of the scheme—the maintenance formula. Any attempt to deal systematically and consistently with the complex realities of

775
human circumstances will necessarily not be entirely straightforward and the provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill repay careful study. But the key principles of the design of the formula are clear. Perhaps I should mention them. They provide a firm foundation for assessing what people can afford to pay in a coherent and equitable way. There are four basic elements.
First, there is the maintenance requirement. This is an amount, which will be calculated with reference to the income support rates, which represents the basic costs of maintaining the children who qualify for a formula award. Secondly, there is the assessable income. This is derived by deducting an exempt income from the parents' net income; that is, income after tax and national insurance. This exempt income represents the weekly amount which it is considered parents need for their own essential day-to-day expenses. It will be based on income support allowances, and will include reasonable housing costs and the costs of any children for whom they are liable. The remaining income is the assessable income; such income of both parents will be taken into account.
Thirdly, there is the deduction rate. A percentage of the assessable income of each parent will be taken into account in order to meet the maintenance requirement, where possible. We intend that, until the maintenance requirement is met, assessable income should be shared equally between the absent parent and his children who qualify under the Bill. A smaller percentage will apply in individual cases after the maintenance requirement has been met. Beyond that, there will be an upper limit to the operation of the formula and, as I indicated earlier, in high income cases above that limit the parties will be able to seek additional maintenance for the child from the courts.
Fourthly and lastly, there is the protected income. This is the income level below which no family of a person liable to maintain a child will be allowed to fall as a result of his meeting his maintenance obligations and his essential living expenses. It will protect those who are working, or who have other sources of income, from being left with an income less than a level set on the basis of income support levels.
The provisions of the Child Support Bill represent an important reform which will make the assessment of child maintenance fairer and its collection and enforcement much more certain. These provisions certainly put children first. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House is accustomed to expressing gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the clear way in which he explains Bills that he places before your Lordships' House. This afternoon is no exception to what we now regard as a rule.
From these Benches there is obviously general approval for the principle that the child comes first. There is every support for seeing that the maintenance of children is made the responsibility of parents, and it is desirable to have an efficient administrative
776
procedure for the collection of maintenance where that is necessary and, furthermore, consistency in the rules relating to maintenance.
Having said that, perhaps I may explain to your Lordships that it is my intention to look with some care at the legal and constitutional matters arising from this Bill on which I feel that some submissions should be made. One has only to look at the list of speakers to realise that the essential welfare element —looking after children who are physically and mentally handicapped—and other matters relating to the social welfare of children is in experienced hands which need no help from me.
I turn first to a constitutional point. This Bill amounts to a piece of skeleton legislation. The late lamented King Henry VIII may not have liked the title of the Bill but undoubtedly he would have been enamoured by the form of it. When I glanced at the list of speakers I had an idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, might wish to say something on this aspect. If I am wrong in predicting a portion of his speech I know that with his usual mercy he will forgive me.
I call the Bill a "legislative skeleton". I am entitled to say that in spite of the noble and learned Lord's diplomatic remarks referring, as is usual on these occasions, to the need for flexibility and the fact that the provisions are largely technical. I believe I am right in saying that under the Bill there will fall to be made 94 regulations. Of that figure, if your Lordships examine Clause 38 of the Bill, 12 only are subject to the affirmative resolution of Parliament. That is very distressing; it is constitutionally objectionable. From a parliamentary point of view—I do not wish to use overstatement—it is a little offensive. It means that at later stages in the passage of the Bill we must either attempt to introduce amendments to ensure that matters of consequence are contained in primary legislation or rely upon undertakings given by those representing the Government. Perhaps I may say with respect—or even without it—that that is most unsatisfactory.
It is always useful to look at the facts which lead to legislation and then one obtains an idea of the stage one is looking at in order to make the acting suitable. The figures do not make comforting reading from a social point of view. I obtained the figures from the Family Policy Studies Centre document, which no doubt other noble Lords have seen. They show that lone-parent families have increased from around ½ million in 1971 to more than 1 million now. More than half represent divorced or separated parents. With regard to the single, non-married mothers, they represent another quarter of that figure.
The figures show that more than 1.6 million of all dependent children—that is, one in eight—are in lone-parent families. A recent Department of Social Security survey of lone parents showed that only 39 per cent. had ever received maintenance, and 29 per cent. were receiving regular payments. Therefore one immediately finds support for the principle of the Bill; namely, that something must be done in regard to

777
looking after the maintenance of children and one must try to ensure that one finds an efficient way of providing for their maintenance.
The first aspect of the Bill which one considers is the setting up of the agency. I should like to share with the House a deep anxiety that I feel when I see that a fundamental view taken by this House—supported also by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—has been slightly eroded. I refer to the view that we all held that the most desirable way of dealing with family problems concerning the husband, wife and children was to ensure that they were dealt with in one court. That was the reason why many of us pleaded for a family court; that is the reason when the noble and learned Lord dealt with the enactment of the Children Bill in 1989, we supported him to the full when he spoke of the problems of children and families being dealt with in one court.
Maintenance is a fundamental part of the matters with which one must deal in regard to children and families. Therefore I doubt whether the setting up of an agency is preferable to the fulfilment of the dream of a family court with similar powers. I wished to state those doubts before we move on to approve the principle of the legislation.
I move on, almost naturally, to consider the question of the family home. I believe—and I am sure other noble Lords agree—that one of the tragedies of lone parentage, whatever be the cause of the loneliness, is the grave insecurity of the children. The one support in regard to that insecurity is the keeping of the home to which they are accustomed. Cause that home, the small child's bedroom and the parentage to be altered, and there is such an accumulation of insecurity that the psychological effects may be dramatic.
At the moment the family home is usually the only asset that a family in the middle and lower income groups possesses—possibly the upper end of the lower income group, but nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties occasioned by mortgages and high interest rates in these latter days, it is more and more the pride of the family to have a family home. What happens now—in fulfilment of an aim of our recent divorce legislation, of which the noble and learned Lord is a great supporter—is that it is the rule and the desirability in many cases to achieve a clean break. That means that the husband or father, as a rule, does not have round his neck a millstone of unceasing maintenance for the years ahead. It means providing the ability to create new lives; to write new chapters when the old ones are unhappy. The way that the courts achieve the clean break is often by suggesting —and certainly agreeing to any consent order—that the father transfers the family home over to the mother. Often the mother will thereupon get income support, the idea being that spouse maintenance ceases when the father or husband does that, and the child maintenance order is a pretty low one.
There is an alternative to those provisions and it is called a Mesher Order. The court says "We shall make an order. The home will remain where it is now and when the youngest child attains the age of 16, the
778
family home will then be sold and the proceeds of sale will be divided between the spouses and sometimes with some benefit to the children under some settlement". What we are looking at here is a result of the division between the court and the agency and the absence of one court dealing with the matter. Faced with a maintenance order under the statutory provisions that we are now looking at, the court will be unable to make an order transferring the house to the wife for the benefit of the children and their security.
The husband will say, "Goodness gracious me, I face a continuing liability". There is no question now of the ability to carry out the provisions of the divorce legislation which has pertained until now, and which cut off the liability and allowed such a settlement to be made. That is something which is so essential concerning the security of children and the family that I make no apology for having spent some time on it.
The noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 5 which deals with the giving of information. That clause is very loosely worded. One may think that the noble and learned Lord would not wish to excuse himself for any vagueness of language on the grounds of being flexible or because it is too technical. Subsection (7) states:
"The obligation to provide information which is imposed by subsection (6) shall not apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed; and may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, be waived by the Secretary of State".
Why should we not know what the circumstances are? If they are to be put into regulations why should they not be put into primary legislation? What is the reason for the vagueness? I am thinking—as undoubtedly the noble and learned Lord did and as I expect other noble Lords are—of the matter we debated concerning the White Paper; namely, the mother who, because of fear, supreme embarrassment or whatever it may be, does not wish to reveal the name of the father and his address. In many cases it may be due to fear. If the excuse for that is to be a meritorious one which is accepted by the Government, I call on the noble and learned Lord to say so and to see that this provision is in primary legislation at the correct stage of the Bill and that it does not rely on a regulation. I remind noble Lords that when dealing with either an affirmative resolution or praying against a regulation, we have no ability to alter at all. We can only accept or refuse. That is one of the matters that we must look at.
I wish to ask a question concerning Clause 6. The noble and learned Lord explained to us that there were variations between England and Wales, and Scotland because of the difference in Scottish law. In Clause 6 there is a provision that in Scotland the right of a child to make its own application is to continue. I ask a question, and it may be that my ignorance may be shown up when I receive the answer. For the benefit of the whole House I ask: has that provision worked well in Scotland? Is it used very often in Scotland? If that right of a child is to apply in Scotland, should it not be available in England and Wales as well?
Clause 18 deals with appeals. It merely states that an appeal shall be to a court. Nobody knows whether

779
it will be to a tribunal specially set up for the purpose or already existent—because that can be a court—or whether it will be a court of law as we understand it. I ask for clarification on that point. There is no need for vagueness on the ground of technicality and there is no need for flexibility. One wants to know the answer. It is very important for husbands, wives, fathers and those representing children to be able to get proper advice and representation. If it is a tribunal we all know the answer: no legal aid.
In the closing time that is available to me I wish to refer to the somewhat draconian aspects of parts of the Bill. I ask noble Lords to look at Clause 13 to which the noble and learned Lord gave some attention. He spoke about the ability to appoint inspectors and said that that provision was also in social welfare legislation. The noble and learned Lord was quite right because that provision is in social welfare legislation which deals with fraud, national insurance contributions and matters of that kind.
We are dealing with the maintenance of children. Your Lordships will see in Clause 13 what rights have been given against citizens of this country. The Secretary of State may appoint inspectors for the purpose of acquiring information. I ask noble Lords to look at subsection (2) which states,
"for the purposes of this Act, an inspector appointed under this section"—
we are dealing with the maintenance of children by parents—
"shall have power to enter at all reasonable times any premises which may be inspected under this section; and to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".
I ask noble Lords to look at draconian subsection (3) which states:
"The premises which may be inspected under this section are any which the inspector concerned has reasonable grounds for supposing to be premises at or from which—
" (a) any person is employed".
Can noble Lords imagine the effect on employment and the embarrassment among fellow employees when an inspector calls at premises where somebody is employed in order to gather any information which he thinks relevant in regard to somebody who presumably has not paid maintenance for his child? There is not even a provision that the inspector will need the specific authority of a Minister to do so. It is at his own discretion. That cannot be. There are other provisions to which I had intended to call attention. I shall mention only one other before I sit down. I shall have to deal with the others at later stages of the Bill unless my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies happens to cover them in his winding-up speech.
It is a question on Clause 32, one of the provisions to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention in his opening remarks. It concerns the power to commit to prison where arrears have not been paid and where it is the view of those who apply for that committal that they have wilfully not been paid. I have read the clause and there is one thing that I could not gather from it. If the man serves his term of imprisonment, are the arrears wiped out; or will he still have to pay the arrears on his release? At this stage I am not coming down on either side as to the merits of the
780
matter. But I ask the question because the old power to commit for debt has gone and one wants to know therefore what is the new legal situation created by the clause.
Your Lordships have as always been most patient and it is about time that I sat down. I repeat that the general aims of this Bill are most acceptable to those whom I represent at this Dispatch Box, but there are many questions to be asked and many defects to be rectified in the remaining stages.

The Gulf War
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The final phase for the liberation of Kuwait and the achievement of the UN resolutions was launched in the early hours of Sunday 24th February. After more than six months of international endeavour to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis, the continuing refusal of Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions and the rejection of the final deadline from the coalition left us no alternative but to proceed with the final ground campaign. The need for this was further confirmed by the fact that at the very time that Tariq Aziz was still purporting to negotiate in Moscow, Saddam Hussein was giving orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait and its oil fields and further outrages against its citizens.
"These land operations involve forces of no fewer than 11 countries: the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, France, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and of course Kuwait. They have now been under way for 38½ hours. So far progress has been rapid and relatively little opposition has been encountered.
"Excellent planning and preparation, and above all their determination, have enabled the coalition forces rapidly to penetrate the extensive obstacle belt that the Iraqis had constructed both along the Saudi/Kuwait border and along a substantial part of the Saudi/Iraq border. To the east of this front coalition forces have now penetrated well into Kuwait and have taken a significant number of prisoners. Many of the Iraqi units encountered surrendered almost immediately. To the west, US, UK, Saudi and French forces have mounted an operation into Iraq against Iraq forces supporting the occupation of Kuwait. Some elements are encircling Iraqi units; others are breaking through defensive positions and beginning to engage Iraqi units direct. The First British Armoured Division is fully involved in this thrust and is now moving steadily forward.
"The Saudis have announced that the number of prisoners of war taken by the coalition has now risen to 20,000. Casualties on the coalition side

781
have been very light. As the House may be aware, two British soldiers lost their lives in the days immediately before the start of the ground offensive, and their families have been told of their deaths. On my latest information there have been no British casualties in the main advance.
"In support of these land advances allied air forces, including British aircraft, have continued their attacks both on strategic targets in Iraq and on the Iraq ground forces in Kuwait and Iraq. These attacks are continuing in spite of poor weather conditions and without serious interference from the smoke of burning oil wells.
"Maritime and amphibious forces in the northern Gulf are playing their part in the coalition attack. In particular, the Royal Navy is playing a crucial role in mine clearance operations. During these operations last night the Iraqis fired a Silkworm missile which was destroyed by a Sea Dart fired from "HMS Gloucester".
"It is vital that we give all the suport we can to the coalition forces in their challenging task. One of the key advantages is the lack of intelligence that the Iraqis have about our exact positions and plans. We must preserve this advantage. That is why we have been so concerned to restrict any information about the military operations that could be of help to the enemy at a critical time. I understand the great interest of the whole country in the progress of our forces, and particularly among the families of all those involved, and we shall do all we can to give accurate information, provided that it can be done safely without putting lives at risk. In the meantime, we look for full understanding and co-operation of all those reporting and commenting on the battle.
"This further phase of the campaign has started well and every credit is due to General Schwarzkopf and all the coalition forces. However, they know that the Iraqi forces in the front line are their least capable and likely to be of the lowest morale
"The news so far has been good: there may be days ahead when it is more difficult. But whatever the ups and downs, British forces know that they have the support of all the House and the nation. Our prayers and our best wishes go with them as they complete the task."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Perhaps I may first of all assure him and agree with him that, whatever the ups and downs, the British forces know that they have the support of the House and the nation. This certainly goes for the Benches from which I speak.
So far as concerns the Statement, there is not very much I have to ask the noble Earl. I respect the thoughts he gave us about the necessity for confidentiality while wishing to keep us as fully informed as possible. I have one or two questions
782
which I hope will not be too embarrassing under these circumstances. The actions of the Iraqis in Kuwait have been deplored by the noble Earl and are deplored by us. It is appalling when people go in and slaughter innocent citizens, sabotage oil wells and set alight whole cities without, as far as one can see, any motive whatsoever. Can the noble Earl tell us whether, in the words of the Statement, it is a fact that at the very time Tariq Aziz was still purporting to negotiate in Moscow Saddam Hussein was giving orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait? To some of us it has been presented as possibly being local commanders who took the initiative into their own hands. The Statement seems to go further than that and says it is confirmed by the fact that it was Saddam Hussein who gave orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could confirm that my interpretation is right.
Secondly, we join him in congratulating General Schwarzkopf and his staff on the excellent planning and execution of the operation to date. To penetrate the obstacle belt that the Iraqis had put up on the Saudi/Kuwait border and along a substantial part of the Saudi/Iraq border in such a short period of time has been a remarkable military achievement. Equally, a remarkable political achievement, if I may use the word "political" in this sense, is that General Schwarzkopf has managed to involve forces of no fewer than 11 countries. This shows rightly that this is a coalition operation and not simply an American operation. We are grateful for that.
Can the noble Earl also tell us a little more about the Iraqi units which were encountered and which surrendered almost immediately? Are we to suppose that they were placed there because they were the weakest elements in the Iraqi forces, in the knowledge that they would be bombed to bits by the allies, and that Saddam Hussein did not want to expose his stronger forces on the front line? In the Government's view, is that the kind of tactic that Saddam Hussein has been adopting?
We are also very glad that casualties have been kept to an absolute minimum on the allied side. We are especially glad to know that there were no British casualties in the main advance. As the noble Earl pointed out, allied air forces have continued their attacks. However, can he tell us whether there has been any indication that the Iraqi air force is in operation, or do we now have total air supremacy? From everything we have seen on television and everything we have heard, it seems that the coalition has total air supremacy. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl could confirm that fact or, alternatively, perhaps he can give us what information he has on the matter.
The noble Earl said that it is vital that we give all the support we can to the coalition forces in their challenging task. We shall certainly do so. Of course, there is the delicate balance to which he referred as regards the reporting of events. We have discussed that aspect of the matter previously in your Lordships' House. I am sure that we on this side of the House wish to echo the noble Earl's plea that those people in

783
the media who are reporting these events should adopt a responsible attitude towards the forces and that they should not put any of them in jeopardy by anything that they may say or show.
These are early days as yet, as General Schwarzkopf pointed out in his briefing yesterday. We endorse what has happened so far and we congratulate the coalition forces and General Schwarzkopf on what has taken place so far. We are, however, resolute that there may be worse to come and that we should not get into the state of euphoria which we experienced on the first day of the air war when some people thought that it was all over after 24 hours. There may indeed be harder tasks to follow and we must be prepared to meet them. All we can do now is to reiterate, in the words of the noble Earl, that our prayers and our best wishes go with our forces as they complete their task.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating that important and encouraging Statement. Our view is that the success of the coalition is really remarkable. It is extraordinary, in particular, how the problems of command and co-ordination in such a diverse coalition have been solved so well. It is indeed extraordinary that Syrian, French and American forces should be fighting side by side in the same complex battle plan. It is an unbelievable event. It is also extraordinary that a weapons system of such enormous complexity and sophistication should apparently be working so reliably and smoothly, especially as regards the anti-missile missiles from the brand new Patriot to the old Navy Sea Dart, which I was delighted to hear the noble Earl say had yesterday intercepted and destroyed a Silkworm missile which was destined for an American battleship.
We look forward to hearing the noble Earl's answers to the many questions which have already been put to him. I shall not repeat them. I do not think that this is a very good time to be asking questions on operational subjects. But, nevertheless, there is one question I should like him to answer. Surely it is the dearest wish of all of us that in one way or another Saddam Hussein should be eliminated. However, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it quite clear, on more than one occasion recently, that they do not consider that to be an aim of the coalition. Can the noble Earl say whether that position still holds and whether that is still the Government's view?
We noted the warning at the end of the noble Earl's Statement. We shall certainly bear it in mind. However, it is impossible not to regard the overall military situation with extreme relief and satisfaction.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously I am most grateful for the general warmth and agreement which has been expressed from all sides of your Lordships' House and for the welcome that the Statement received. Perhaps I may deal first with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. They are not especially embarrassing questions and I shall
784
do my best to answer them. However, I am not so sure that the answers are totally known. That is why I shall be somewhat hesitant in my replies.
The noble Lord's first question concerned timing. He asked whether Saddam Hussein was in fact giving orders for the Kuwaiti oil fields to be set on fire at the time when Tariq Aziz was negotiating. I can only repeat the information contained in the Statement: at the very time that Tariq Aziz was still purporting to negotiate in Moscow, Saddam Hussein was indeed giving orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait and its oil fields and for further outrages to take place against its citizens. Those actions were, therefore, simultaneous.
The noble Lord went on to praise the strength of the coalition forces now operating in these dangerous manoeuvres. He referred to the fact that 11 countries have now joined together and that they are doing their very best to oust the Iraqi forces from the area and to restore the government of Kuwait to its rightful owners.
It would be speculating too much for me to say a great deal about whether Saddam Hussein wished his weaker forces to be in the front line and his stronger forces behind. Frankly, we do not know what his deployment plans were, let alone what they may be at present. However, it may be sensible to suggest that that was indeed his purpose. As regards any indication of action on the part of the Iraqi air force, we have no information on any further action by those forces. Therefore, under the present conditions, we hold air supremacy.
I turn now to deal with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He rightly talked about the great and determined strength of the coalition forces. Your Lordships will find it both remarkable and pleasing that this should have happened. We are certain that this will continue to happen throughout the length of the campaign. The noble Lord also raised the question about the elimination of Saddam Hussein. That is not the case. As we all know, the case has been clearly set out in the Security Council's Resolutions Nos. 678, 660 and indeed in others. The aim is to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and to restore the legitimate government. But, as has been said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, we would not shed a tear if Saddam Hussein were to go. Indeed, the prospects for peace and security in the region would certainly be enhanced. However, that is not a coalition aim and not an aim of this Government.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that while we are entitled to receive a general picture of what is taking place, it may not be especially wise to try to anticipate any future movements of the coalition? Further, can he tell us whether Her Majesty's Message has been conveyed to the British troops? Would it not be possible for the department from time to time to send, on behalf of Parliament,

785
our congratulations and admiration to the coalition forces, and in particular to the British servicemen, for what they are achieving?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is obviously in the interests of all our troops that the coalition's aims with regard to future military manoeuvres should not be made known. On the noble Lord's second point about Her Majesty the Queen's message to the troops, I am sure that our troops are aware of it and appreciate it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister back to his answer to the first question put by my noble friend Lord Williams about how we know that it was Saddam Hussein who ordered the firing of the oil wells and the recent killings in Kuwait. Will he give a careful answer because much more may be heard of this matter? On the one hand, if someone's army starts doing something the natural inference is that it has been told to do so by its commander in chief. On the other hand, we are aware that the coalition forces have been seeking over the weeks, with some success, to disrupt Iraqi communications. I shall repeat the question. Was it a natural inference? They must have been ordered to do it, must they not? Or was it the result of certain knowledge obtained through intercepted communications or other means? The importance of the point lies in the fact that the justifications advanced by President Bush for not waiting until today—the time asked for by Mr. Gorbachev for the Soviet initiative—and for insisting on attacking on Saturday have more to do with Iraq's recent savage actions in Kuwait rather than any difference between the American and the Soviet proposals, as pointed out by President Bush.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that Saddam Hussein is commander in chief of his own forces. The atrocities and the firing of the oil wells took place while Tariq Aziz was in Moscow. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the actions of his men.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it wise and sensible to allow Moslems to demonstrate in our streets against us presumably protected by some 100 police who have other more necessary duties?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that this is a free country. If the Moslems feel that they want to demonstrate, they must be allowed to do so although they must be carefully controlled by the police.
Lout Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, it is gratifying to hear that casualties have been so light, but there is no cause for rejoicing. In war there rarely is. The main battle has not yet been joined. Forces that are still solid and united in the cause of international law have made an impressive impact in the initial assault to relieve Kuwait. Should not therefore Saddam Hussein now be aware of the ultimate outcome and that a surrender would save many lives, mostly those of his own countrymen? Further, the Iraqi republican guard, possibly with chemical weapons, may fight fiercely on their own soil but will inevitably be defeated with such a massive deployment of
786
professional forces and equipment ranged against them. How best can that message be put across to Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we have been endeavouring for the past six months, by every possible means, to put that message across. Saddam Hussein has done nothing but prevaricate. He has been obtuse, difficult, totally irrational and unreasonable to the detriment of the whole of his country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are informed that the people of Iraq are given totally false and misleading reports about the course of the war and almost everything else. What steps are being taken to counteract that—for example, by dropping pamphlets or through other means?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the coalition forces are dropping pamphlets telling the Iraqis the truth and urging them to surrender.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the BBC Arabic service broadcasting eight hours a day is the biggest overseas service of the BBC?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the question. Will the noble Lord be good enough to repeat it?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it was not really a question. I asked whether the Minister was aware that the BBC's Arabic service, which broadcasts for eight hours a day, represents the biggest portion of the BBC's overseas broadcasts? Presumably that service is conveying the message to the Iraqi people in every possible programme.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact, but I am now.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions arising from what has happened since the House met last week. First, did the third and final Soviet peace plan differ from American requirements only as between seven days and 21 days for the withdrawal to be completed? Was that plan ever put before the Security Council? Secondly, who gave the order to start the ground offensive? Was it the Security Council or the President of the United States?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it was the President of the United States in agreement with the coalition forces and the heads of government represented by the coalition forces. As regards the Soviet peace initiative, I have said on other occasions that we are faced with the problem of deciding who to believe—the Iraqi foreign minister, or Saddam Hussein making belligerent statements in Baghdad.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, is it not the case that, as in the Second World War, the commander in chief on the spot will be given a general directive of probably not more than a few lines and a certain latitude as to when to launch the assault? If that is the case—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—I imagine that General Schwarzkopf will not have been standing by waiting for a call from the White House telling him when to proceed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that the general commanding in the arena is given his objective and the timescale within which to achieve it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my question was: does the Minister agree that there is a difference between the Security Council's action in this case and its action 40 years ago in the Korean case when the power to order the war involving United Nations blue berets was given to the commander in chief under the aegis of the Security Council?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is now too late for Iraqi half promises and half acceptances. The world now needs a clear and unambiguous statement from Saddam Hussein that he fully accepts the United Nations resolutions and is now withdrawing his forces from Kuwait completely and unconditionally.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, was correct to say that it is impossible to fight a war—something we are doing at the moment —unless the commander in chief has discretion to initiate action to achieve the tactical objectives.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that must surely be the prerogative of the general commanding in the area.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarity of his exposition of this complicated Bill. From these Benches I state our agreement with his emphasis, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, upon the priority which must be accorded to children and the interests of their mothers in the fair, efficient and speedy assessment and collection of maintenance.
The Bill provides for radical changes in the methods of supporting children of one-parent families which were presaged in the White Paper Children come First. In particular, a child support agency will be set up within the Department of Social Security with a staff of 4,700, more than 2,000 of whom will be additional to the present establishment. Those officials will administer the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance for children at an estimated added cost of £35 million a year, with further capital costs of some £30 million. However, their labours are expected to reduce social security expenditure by £400 million within an unstated period.
The White Paper came 22 years after the first official inquiry into maintenance by the Graham Hall Committee on Statutory Maintenance Limits. After recommending abolition of the statutory limits which operated in magistrates' courts the committee concluded, and I quote:
"We have been convinced by the evidence assembled for our limited study that further and far-reaching evolution of the maintenance system will be found necessary within the next decade or so."
788
The result was the appointment in 1969 of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, with a very wide remit. Its report, published five years later and running to two-thirds of a million words, cannot be summarised succinctly but for my present purpose it is sufficient to say that the committee demonstrated how social security constitutes a third system of family law alongside the two operating in the courts and intertwined with them.
Throughout this century the law has proclaimed an obligation upon husbands and fathers to maintain their wives and children, and the courts have made millions of maintenance orders which were legal fictions, because it has never been possible to enforce them in practice. As a consequence social policy has always had to provide the subsistence which the law promised, and that is so for the reason which was stated crisply by the National Assistance Board in its annual report for 1953:
"A woman cannot be left to starve because her marriage is broken; still less can her children be left to starve."
Nothing has changed since the Finer Committee reported, save that the number of casualties of broken homes has increased dramatically. There is no need to cite the numbers because they have already been cited by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Today, as when Finer reported, what court maintenance orders contribute is marginal. What social security provides is fundamental. Accordingly, the child support agency is put forward by the Government as a solution to what the Finer Committee defined as a central issue of its terms of reference. I think it is instructive to compare the two solutions.
The Finer Committee recommended a family court, to achieve three main aims. First, to eliminate overlapping family jurisdictions. Secondly, in the interests of realism and reason alike, to require that the courts and the social security authorities be brought not into any sort of merger but into an intimate working relationship. Thirdly, the committee recommended that the family jurisdiction should be equipped with its own welfare service, specifically adapted and responsive to its own needs.
Throughout the committee's analysis there runs an awareness of involvement in moral, social, economic and legal issues of fundamental importance. Indeed, an approving and perceptive review of the report in the Financial Times observed that it should be interpreted in part as an essay on the status and social situation of women in British society, which indeed it was.
The then Secretary of State for Social Services and the Lord Chancellor immediately turned down the proposals without consideration, as being too costly; and cost has since remained the official incantation which disposes of the subject. So a family court remains an aspiration. Nevertheless, the only published computation of the cost of such a court made by Judge Graham Hall and Mr. Douglas Martin suggested that a unified court would be cheaper than the present fragmented arrangements.

789
The White Paper sets out the case for a child support agency as one part of what the Government describe, and what the noble and learned Lord explained, as a balanced programme to review and reform the family justice system in England and Wales. The principle which justifies the establishment of an entirely new procedure is that the failure to pay maintenance regularly places—and here I quote the White Paper—
"the responsibility for maintaining the children on other taxpayers, many of whom are raising families on their own."
This is a reasonable approach if the father's default is contumacious and I know of no informed body or person who thinks otherwise. Certainly on these Benches we hold it to be the duty of the authorities to extract maintenance from fathers who refuse or neglect to pay although they are able to do so. They are rogues, and they merit no sympathy.
However, this is not the difficulty in the real world, where some fathers are contumacious and many others cannot pay fully because they are maintaining two families on one wage. A democracy cannot restrict the right of spouses to separate, to co-habit or to marry again after divorce; and the electorate would be unlikely to welcome an attempt to introduce indissoluble marriage or to enforce different sexual rules for different income groups. For decades past, the poor have been emulating the behaviour of their financial betters and there may arise an irreconcilable conflict of values between the duty to maintain a family to the extent of available resources and the right to exercise choice by changing marital or sexual partners.
Neither administrative nor legal manipulation can extract quarts from pint pots, and because in these circumstances there is simply not enough money to go round, the courts and the social security authorities have come to pragmatic arrangements. As income support rates are pitched at subsistence level, courts will rarely make a substantive order against a spouse on income support. Moreover, as Professor Cretney summarises the present position;
"if both parties have incomes at or near subsistence level, the court, while not allowing the less impoverished spouse to throw on to the state the cost of supporting his dependents, will allow him or his family to keep not only a subsistence level of income … but also some additional financial incentive to continue in work."
This is the central issue. The community of taxpayers already contributes in large measure towards the cost of family breakdown, and I see no method consistent with the basic tenets of a free and caring society to discharge it from that responsibility. Moreover, I am not aware of any pressing public demand for such action. The latest, the seventh, report on British social attitudes concludes that public opinion clearly favours more public spending to maintain the ability of the social security system to provide adequate and timely benefits to those who really need them.
I know as fact that there is a great general anxiety, shared on these Benches, about the effects upon children of the poverty of their lone parents. Accordingly, the proposed child support agency must
790
be judged not only as a machinery for reducing government expenditure on income support by more efficient enforcement of child maintenance, coupled with the small inducement for mothers to go out to work, but in terms of the effect it will have upon public attitudes towards the family and family law generally.
The many criticisms of the Bill and the agency which have come from voluntary organisations working in the field express a unanimity of dismay that so ill-considered a project has reached the point of legislation. The agency will take over from the courts the determination by a non-discretionary—hence consistent—formula of the maintenance of children in some 2 million families, but the maintenance of their mothers will continue to be settled by the courts.
I have been unable to discover the rationale for that seemingly grotesque separation, although some sense might be made of it if the Government intend to turn a very much wider part of the present family jurisdiction of the courts into an administrative procedure. I hope that I am mistaken. I believe that family matters should be supervised by judicial institutions doing justice according to law. At the end of the day, members of broken families should not be thought of as clients of administrative agencies or as patients for whom adjudication is a form of treatment. We have to promote the evolving synthesis between law and welfare.
As it is, the technical and legal consequences of setting up the agency do not seem to have been examined. I wonder whether the Law Commission was consulted when the scheme was drafted. Bodies as different as the Law Society, the Legal Action Group and the Association of County Court and District Registrars complain of the Government's failure to deal with the consequential interrelationships of administrative and judicial procedures and policies, for example, in respect of agreeing maintenance and settling the ownership of the matrimonial home according to the principle of the clean break to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred.
There would have been decided advantages for mothers if the new agency had been established as part of the family court on the Finer model. Indeed, it bears some resemblance to that committee's proposals for the enforcement of maintenance; but, wrenched out of the family context, the agency will destroy such coherence as the system now possesses and will undermine, for example, the intention of the Children Act 1989 to eliminate different categories of children and to ensure that all proceedings relating to one family will be heard in the same court.
The emphasis of the White Paper upon natural parents conflicts with the concept of the rights of the child who has been treated as a member of the family. There will be inequality of treatment between families because the Government state, without discussion, that the order of priority which should commonly prevail is that natural children ought to take precedence over stepchildren. This formula favours first families. It is astonishing that the most taxing

791
problem of distributive justice and of the relationships between families is dealt with in the White Paper by the mere assertion of priority for natural children.
I have said enough to indicate the anxieties that these Benches entertain about the Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading. From these Benches we shall try to deal with as many of the difficulties as we can in Committee. But in our view the only satisfactory and compassionate solution lies in the establishment of a proper family court. The very high costs of establishing this new agency would have made a useful contribution to such a court.

Manchester Prison: The Woolf Report
4.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement about the report of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry into the disturbances last April at Strangeways Prison, Manchester, and other prisons which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"I am grateful to Lord Justice Woolf and to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim, who joined in Part II of the inquiry, for such a wide-ranging and constructive report, which includes 12 recommendations and 204 proposals.
"The events of last April were unprecedented and unacceptable. Control of one of our largest prisons was lost for 25 days. Significant violence erupted at eight more prisons, and at others control was maintained with great difficulty. The country was shocked by the defiance and destruction which we saw nightly on our TV screens. I condemn utterly the behaviour of the small minority of the prisoners who joined in this orgy of destruction. As the House will be well aware, 183 persons have been convicted or are now awaiting trial on charges including murder and riot.
"The report concludes that some decisions might have been taken differently. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Woolf stresses, and I wish to stress to the House today, that the disturbances were handled with great skill and courage by the prison staff at all levels.
"Though Lord Justice Woolf makes some critical comments about the prison service, he also emphasises that the public have every reason to be extremely grateful to the members of the service who over a number of years have shown immense dedication, courage and professionalism. I want to endorse that judgment.
"Immediately after the end of the riot, my predecessor put in hand urgent action. Incidents of this sort must be dealt with firmly and quickly. We have therefore set up a new incident control centre, overhauled contingency plans and clarified the lines of responsibility for dealing with riots.
"More staff have been trained in the new and improved techniques of control and restraint which
792
are necessary to handle dangerous incidents. The stock of riot control equipment has been increased. We have completed a review of the physical security of prisons, in particular access to roofs, and substantial improvements have been made.
"The country will not tolerate the kind of disgraceful behaviour witnessed last April. We must make clear our utter condemnation of it by introducing a new deterrent. We shall therefore, as we have already made clear, bring before the House proposals to create a new offence of prison mutiny, which will carry a maximum penalty of 10 extra years in prison. But Lord Justice Woolf emphasises that we need to balance security and control with justice and humanity, and I wholly endorse that view. Guilty criminals have to be punished by the loss of their liberty. Dangerous criminals have to be detained to protect the public. It is not the purpose of the prison system to provide holiday camps for prisoners. But it is not the purpose of the prison system to provide physical conditions which degrade and humiliate prisoners and strip away their self-respect. Prisons should be places which are austere but decent, providing a busy and positive regime which prepares criminals for their ultimate release.
"Many reforms are already in hand started by a major programme inaugurated by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw in 1979. Since 1979 eight new prisons have been built and 13 more are under construction.
"Over the next two years 12 new prisons will be opened. The prison population is now some 4,000 below what it was in September 1989. This means that we are in sight of the end of overcrowding. I believe that we can now take these reforms a major step further.
"I consider that the practice of prisoners having to slop out is degrading and intolerable. It makes it very difficult to run a sensible prison regime and should be brought to an end. The present target is to do this in 1997. Lord Justice Woolf recommends that it should not be later than February 1996. In my view we can and should do even better. I am now launching a programme to provide all prisoners with access to sanitation day and night by the end of 1994. This programme will cost an extra £36 million over the next four years. Half of this I will find from existing provision, but I am glad to say that an additional £18 million will be provided. I also consider that it is wrong for juveniles awaiting trial to be held in prison and I intend to bring that practice to an end.
"The report also makes many helpful recommendations about the regimes which we provide for prisoners. We must not forget that while imprisonment punishes the criminal and protects the public, its other purposes are rehabilitation and preparation for a return to the community. Since 1988 there has been a substantial increase in the hours spent on education, from 5·5 million to 7·7 million. I want to see more prisoners taking up educational courses and training in skills, so that

793
they will have a better chance of leading a life free from crime when they are released. Prisoners must be kept constructively occupied in workshops and other activity, and Lord Justice Woolf makes important recommendations in this area.
"Lord Justice Woolf also emphasises how important it is for prisoners to retain their family ties. In my view it is vital that prisoners maintain that link so that they can assume their family responsibilities on release. It is also the thrust of Government thinking that everything should be done to avoid the break-up of families which itself can contribute to delinquency and crime. I therefore propose to increase the level of visits to prisoners and extend the arrangements for financially-assisted visits for visitors who are on low incomes. I have also decided to increase the opportunities for home leave in open prisons from three times a year to six times a year. I am placing details in the Library of the House.
"Lord Justice Woolf points out the value of cardphones, which allow prisoners to retain contact with their families. I am therefore announcing, subject to some limitation for security reasons, that cardphones paid for by prisoners will be provided in all those prisons which do not already have them.
"Despite the availability of cardphones, letters remain very important to most prisoners. Like Lord Justice Woolf, I believe that the present levels of censorship are unnecessary. I have therefore decided to abolish routine censorship in all establishments except dispersal prisons. Governors will retain for security reasons the right to censor.
"These measures represent a major series of reforms. But they cover only some of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. He makes many other proposals including the place of the prison service in the wider criminal justice system and the higher management of the service. I shall want to give those proposals the most careful consideration. I propose to issue a White Paper later this year which takes account of them and which will chart the direction of the prison service for the rest of the century and beyond.
"These changes will transform the living and working conditions of both prisoners and prison officers. But they depend crucially upon the managers and staff of the prison service. I have already visited many prisons and I have been very impressed with the dedication and the concern of the governors and the staff whom I have met.
"In the past industrial relations in the prison service have from time to time been troubled. The future wellbeing of the service requires a new spirit of co-operation on all the issues which we face. With this in mind I saw the trade unions representing all prison service staff earlier today. I very much hope they will respond in the spirit of Lord Justice Woolf's proposals.
"The events of last April marked a watershed in the history of our prison service. We cannot, and will not, tolerate the savagery and vandalism in our
794
prisons which we saw then. We have already taken urgent action to remedy deficiencies. Lord Justice Woolf's report recognises that while prisoners do have to be held in secure conditions, a decent regime enhances security by making incidents such as those of last April less likely. The Woolf Report recommends constructive changes to our prison system which build on the substantial modernisation of the past decade. I have announced today further reforms and more will follow. I commend the report to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. We are also grateful to Lord Justice Woolf and to Judge Tumim for their report which is clearly thorough, far-reaching and comprehensive. I say that although I have not seen the report. I hope I may make a slight plea at this stage that we should look at our procedures in this House; frankly, they are ludicrous. When I asked at the Printed Paper Office whether I could see the report as I wished to reply to the Statement on behalf of the Opposition, I was told that the Printed Paper Office had the report but that I could not see it until after the Statement had been made. However one looks at it, that is absurd. I hope that something can be done about it.
It is right that we should echo the tributes paid by Lord Justice Woolf to the dedication, courage and professionalism of the members of the prison service. Such plaudits were not unexpected among those of us who have any connection, in a professional capacity or otherwise, with the members of the prison service. However, we are also right to wonder why it is that it takes a report of such a fundamental nature on a riot of such length and ferocity to produce even the limited response that we have heard from the Government today.
Strangeways was a riot waiting to happen. The signs were there to be read. Surely, the inquiries into the riots that occurred in 1986, 1988 and 1989 should have indicated to the Government that the poor quality of prison regimes would lead to explosive situations—and explode they did. Seeing who has repeated the Statement in this House today, namely, the noble Lord the Leader of the House who was the Home Secretary at that time, I cannot resist reminding the House that Labour Party recommendations urged the Government a year ago—long before the Strangeways riot—that there should be a national system of accredited standard; that there should be better prospects for prisoners to maintain links with their families; that there should be a revision of disciplinary procedures; and that there should be access to education, recreation and employment as of right.
I also remind the House that the then Home Secretary, who now sits on the Benches opposite, dismissed those proposals and treated them with derision. There is great joy in heaven over every sinner

795
who repents, and I should have liked to have seen some small signs of repentance this afternoon from the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he made the Statement on behalf of the Government, who seem to have adopted a great deal of what my party urged upon them a year or so ago.
I particularly commend some of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations, particularly those designed to give prisoners a greater degree of dignity and better access to rehabilitative treatment. Of course we support the end of slopping out by 1994. It is a degrading practice and should have ended a long time ago. It is interesting to note, however, that the Government can now find £36 million in order to speed up that process in the light of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations when that money was apparently not available when the Government were urged to do so some time ago.
I particularly like the proposal that prisoners should be able to serve their sentences nearer to their homes. We all agree that continuity of family contact must be beneficial not only to the individual prisoner but also in terms of the security of the prison.
I feel strongly about two other provisions in Lord Justice Woolf's report: that we should consider new methods of dealing with sex offenders and those sentenced to life imprisonment. The existing terms of Rule 43 and the way that they are administered in our prisons is not the most glowing tribute to the way in which we deal with the problem of criminal offenders in this country. I also urge the Government to accept —and accept quickly—the recommendation which I understand is contained in the report that persons suffering from mental disorders should not be held in ordinary prisons but should be held in special hostels.
Those of us who practise in the courts cannot but fail to be struck by the fact that in recent years more and more of the people one represents seem to suffer from some kind of mental disorder. That may not be a new feature of the courts. However, all too often now care in the community appears to mean that somebody who gets into trouble with the authorities and breaks the law ends up in the prison system where he receives minimal care and rehabilitation. I believe that the House would approve if people suffering from mental disorder could be dealt with outside the normal prison context.
Reading the Statement of the Home Secretary in another place and repeated here today, the proposal for nationally determined standards is now accepted by the Government.
Whatever else the recommendations mean and their acceptance by the Government implies, they mean more resources. They mean better trained prison officers; they mean more and not less supervision. To produce what the Statement describes as "austere but decent" standards for all will be an expensive task. Therefore I have three specific questions for the Government.
First, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not be surprised if I ask whether the money will be
796
made available to carry out the recommendations of the Woolf Report which the Government accept. Secondly, when do the Government hope to produce their White Paper? I trust that it will be sooner rather than later. Also, when do they propose to take action on those parts of the Woolf Report which they accept? Can the Criminal Justice Bill, which is about to leave the other place and come to this House, be used for action on some of the Woolf Report recommendations which the Government accept?
Thirdly, the Statement says that there have been consultations this morning with all the trade unions representing people employed in the prison service. The Government ask for a new spirit of co-operation in the light of the Woolf Report. I understand that on the part of the Prison Officers' Association at least that co-operation was forthcoming. I should like the noble Lord the Leader of the House to confirm that. Will the Government also confirm that they recognise that co-operation is a two-way process and that the legitimate grievances of the Prison Officers' Association and those employed in the prison service will have to be taken into account and resolved at the same time as the Government appeal to them for a greater degree of co-operation?
It is sad that the recommendations are made in the light of the riot that took place. However, I believe that we have a unique opportunity—certainly one that will not occur very often—to put right those deficiencies in the prison service which the Woolf Report and all of us recognise exist.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is particularly appropriate that he should do so because he was Home Secretary at the time when the disturbances took place. Not only did they take place during the period of office of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but major disturbances also took place during the period of office of Mr. Hurd. They also occurred in the period of office of the Labour Government.
I, too, should like to express my thanks to Lord Justice Woolf, Judge Tumim and the assessors who did an extremely good job in an extraordinarily short period of time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the situation regarding the publication of the report and its issue to Members of this House and of another place is absurd. Governments of different parties have found it convenient to make Statements in both Houses without Members having a full copy of the report available to them. That is a pity and I hope that the matter will be looked into. It is done entirely for the convenience of Ministers. Copies of the report were made available under the usual lobby rules to the journalists who will comment on the report.
I recognise that many of the matters dealt with by Lord Justice Woolf are not dealt with in the Statement, for entirely understandable reasons. One concerns the proposal regarding local community gaols. That is a particularly interesting idea on which we shall be interested in due course to learn the

797
Government's reaction. A second point is the question of a new prison rule aimed at the elimination of overcrowding.
I very much welcome a great deal of what the Home Secretary said in his Statement. The Statement points to major improvements in the prison system of this country. We should give unqualified praise for many of the policies which have been announced today.
The Home Secretary said in the Statement that it is not the purpose of the prison system to tolerate conditions which degrade and humiliate prisoners and damage their self-respect. Yet, as we all know, we have accepted such conditions for many decades. That being so, we are delighted that the slopping out process is to end by the end of 1994 and that the Government have gone further than the recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf. It is a truly disgusting system and we welcome the fact that additional resources will be made available to deal with the problem.
We support the Home Secretary's decision to expand the number of educational courses, to develop skills training and to improve the quantity of workshop activities. We also support emphatically the expansion of family visits and the use of cardphones so that prisoners can more easily maintain contact with their families.
Finally, we warmly welcome the decision to reduce drastically the level of censorship that takes place in prisons, except of course in dispersal prisons and in particular cases at the discretion of governors. A great deal of censorship has been wholly unnecessary. In fact it has been one of the least attractive restrictive practices applied in the prison system. It has absorbed countless hours of staff time which could have been far better used to improve the quality of regimes in many of our prison department establishments.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—as I am sure that he is, given his recent ministerial experience—that it is now vital that there should be an improvement in industrial relations in the prison system. In his Statement the Home Secretary referred to industrial relations in the service having been troubled. If I may say so, that was a classic English understatement. As we all know, industrial relations in the prison service are worse than in any other part of British industry, either public or private.
Is he clear that the major changes announced today will not succeed if the relentless confrontation between some branches of the POA and management continues? We all recognise that additional manpower will be required as a result of the implementation of some of these recommendations. However, he must be aware I hat everyone in the prison service now has the responsibility to ensure that those major reforms succeed' and that they are not accompanied by massive and unrealistic demands for additional manpower, which can be afforded by neither this Government nor any other government that is likely to take power in this country.
I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will appreciate that the House will be eager to
798
have an early debate on this matter. I hope very much that he will accept from these Benches our hope that he will provide time for such a debate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, thanked Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim for the work that they have done. I am sure that we all proffer our thanks. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he had not seen the report, but despite that he seemed to have a very good grasp of it. I think that my words might be misinterpreted if I were to say that he was fortunate in not having had to read it. However, my meaning would be that it is a very weighty document indeed and Members of the House will wish to study it with care.
I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was ungenerous when he said that there had been a limited response to the report. I read out a number of decisions made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I heard many times "Hear, hear" from the Labour Benches as I read them out. It is rather absurd to say that there was a limited response when I was able to announce that my right honourable friend said that in 1994 there would be an end to slopping-out, that there would be changes in censorship, an end to juvenile remands in prisons, an increase in family visits, an increase in facilities for Phonecards and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that there was bound to be an explosion and asked why more had not been done. Again, that is an extraordinary comment from the Benches opposite. It was my noble friend Lord Whitelaw who persuaded the Government to embark on the first major prison building programme of this century in 1979. It is largely due to his marvellous work that we are in a position now to adopt many of the proposals made by Lord Justice Woolf in this report. Had we carried on as we were in 1979, without a penny being spent on new prisons, we should indeed be in an impossible position today. The noble Lord might have been more generous and pointed to the fact that we have made considerable progress since 1979 with the completion of eight prisons, 12 more prisons about to be completed in the next two years and 13 prisons altogether in a year or two after that.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was glad that at last the Government had accepted the recommendation of the report that there should be access to education as of right. I do not wish the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension at all that in this report there are certain proposals to the effect that there should be some kind of contract or compact between the prison governor and the prisons. That has not been accepted thus far by my right honourable friend. One has only to think for a moment to understand some of the difficulties that might be involved, with continual allegations that in some way or other the contract had not been fulfilled.
However, I think we can all agree that what is necessary is that facilities for education should steadily be expanded in the prison service. That is precisely what has been happening during these past few years. It is very interesting to note—it was one of

799
the tragedies of Strangeways with which I was brought face to face in April —the progress that had been made by Mr. Brendan O'Friel during the year before the outbreak of the riot. One could go round prison after prison in this country and see the progress that was being made.
Again, the noble Lord was very grudging in his praise of my right honourable friend for announcing an end to slopping-out and said that it should have been done long ago. It certainly was not done when his government were in office and little progress was made in that direction. I certainly agree with what he had to say about the far too large a number of people with mental disorders who find themselves in prison. He knows the great efforts that have been made to persuade the courts over the years that whenever possible they should not send such persons to prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me three questions. He asked whether money would be made available for the recommendations that have been accepted, and the answer is yes. He asked when the White Paper will be produced. I think I recollect correctly that my right honourable friend said that it would be in the summer of this year. He also asked me about co-operation by the prison service and said in effect that there had always been co-operation by the prison service, or that is what he had been told. It is ridiculous to deny that there have been difficulties in the past and we must all work together to try to remove those difficulties. Now we are faced with all the new challenges identified by Lord Justice Woolf in his report.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the availability of reports of this nature when a Statement is to be made. Obviously it is something that has concerned Parliament over a very long period of time. I cannot make any rash promises but it is certainly something which I shall study and talk about to my colleagues. I am glad that he congratulated my right honourable friend on the steps taken to expand visits and to enable better contact to be maintained between a prisoner and his family. I myself believe that that is fundamental.
The noble Lord also welcomed the change in the censorship rules. I am grateful for what he had to say about industrial relations in the prison service.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on moving forward to 1994 the end date for slopping-out. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he would give attention to the methods to be employed. The methods that have been used quite widely in the past have meant putting in in-cell sanitation. That is certainly better than a chamber pot but only marginally so.
I think that everyone who has considered this matter would agree that this has to be done by electronically controlled doors from cells to lavatories. I am only anxious that the wrong things should not be done.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that Lord Justice Woolf suggests that one or the other system ought to be made available. I suppose that to some extent it depends on the physical characteristics of the individual establishment. Electronic locking and unlocking systems are quite difficult to install.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the constructive reaction by both Lord Justice Woolf and Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons to the disgraceful scenes at Strangeways is much to be welcomed? Does he also appreciate that I greatly commend the response of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary?
Is my noble friend further aware and, and perhaps I may also ask kindly, is the noble Lord, Lord Richard, also aware, that to achieve improvements in our prisons against the background of the widespread indifference by the general public and the difficulty of obtaining money for them has defied all Home Secretaries over the years? All have done a great deal. However, it makes one extremely modest when one considers in the final event how little one has achieved. But it must be said time and again that that has much to do with the great indifference to the conditions of the staff and prisoners in our prisons—the staff greatly deserve better conditions—by the general public, Parliament and a large number of Members of Parliament. In the past I have often wondered, as I do today, how many Members of another place have ever been inside a prison. How many have ever seen the conditions? How many realise how enormous the expenditure must be to fulfil only some of the recommendations in the report?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I wish that it had not happened in this way, but there is no doubt that the events of Strangeways have woken many people up to the problems in our prisons. Such an event concentrates people's minds on a problem which they may previously have avoided considering.
My noble friend does not do himself justice. In a sense he was the exception. He was able to win resources at a difficult time in order to embark on an extensive prison building programme. Together with changing practices of sentencing by the courts, it has reduced the prison population by 4,000 since 1989. It has helped to make possible the changes which are now demanded by Lord Justice Woolf.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we very much welcome the reference to improvements in education and training. I hope that we shall be able to pursue them at much greater length in a debate. To what extent are the Government taking training on board? It is becoming a matter of great urgency. Training inside prisons is not of the slightest use unless it is possible for the prisoner when released to obtain work in the skill for which he has been trained. That has big implications for sentencing policy.
As I am sure the noble Lord knows, since 1975 the Germans have made training one of their major priorities with regard to sentencing in order that it can

801
lead to employment. If it does not do so, there may be frustration and the discrediting of training. It is a matter of the greatest urgency. I declare an interest. I speak as chairman of Apex. The amount of money which has come through the TECs and is now available for training ex-prisoners is being seriously reduced. Training of ex-prisoners in order to obtain employment will be cut back drastically unless something is done about the amount of money available, and done now.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I had better not embark now on the training of ex-prisoners. I shall speak on the contents of the report. I agree with the noble Baroness that one can hardly over emphasise the importance of training within prisons. It is not just a question of trying to prepare people for life once they have left prison but of keeping them gainfully employed while they are in prison so that they do not get into mischief; it is giving the prison service a more productive life. One can imagine nothing more destructive than having to work in a situation in which one is a mere turnkey, but if one is involved in trying to prepare people for life after prison then one is in a very important job indeed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not a Member from this side? It is not.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did a very good job in his time. In another moment he will no doubt do so again. However, I cannot share the attitude of cosy self-congratulation which seems to be spreading on the Benches opposite. Anyone who has worked in prisons for a long time knows that conditions for prisoners are worse now than they were 20 years ago. Let us be clear on that fact. Anyone who has read the long series of scathing reports published by Judge Tumim is aware that the situation in our prisons is a national scandal.
I have not had the opportunity to read the report. I am ready to take an optimistic view. However, since sentencing was excluded, the worst feature does not come into the discussion. It is like an excellent performance of "Hamlet" without the Prince. As long as judges send too many people to prison, the conditions will be very bad.
The other aspect concerns the regimes. I am under the impression that regimes were excluded in the report. If I am wrong, since I have not read the report, the noble Lord will correct me. I believe that Judge Tumim is undertaking a fuller inquiry into the regimes. Until they are altered and prisoners do not spend abominably long hours in their cells—it is longer than it used to be—matters will not improve.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble Earl concentrating too much on the local prisons? No one doubts that we have a major problem in our local prisons. However, new, modern prisons such as Belmarsh in Woolwich and some in Lancashire are of a far higher standard than those available 20 years ago.
802
The noble Earl is right. One aspect of the problem concerns sentencing practice. We have addressed other aspects in the Criminal Justice Bill. So far as concerns the regimes, Lord Justice Woolf made it absolutely plain at the beginning of the report that I told him that he could set his own agenda. He was aware that if he wished to consider the importance of regimes he could do so.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not wish to comment on the report until I have read it. However, congratulations are in order to my noble friend upon having commissioned it, and to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw on having initiated a programme of expansion and refurbishment without which matters would be devastatingly worse.
My purpose for intervening is to remind noble Lords that the size of the problem depends to a large extent on the number of people sent to prison. It is not only sentencing policy which determines that. It is determined by the way in which we bring up, educate and guide our young people. Will my noble friend and his right honourable friend bear that factor very much in mind when considering the report? Will they pay close attention to the imperative (as I see it) of rendering our treatment of the young cost-effective by supporting those schemes within the voluntary sector designed to deflect young people in danger of offending from an offending career and those who have offended from custody? Programmes of rehabilitation within the community are more effective than any regime which can be produced in a custodial sentence.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund. It was instituted to make such provision specifically for younger persons and juvenile offenders, and relates principally to the Department of Health. The department and the Home Secretary can rightly consider that organisation as a means of reducing the problem.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend will agree that it is worth while to consider all the influences which may turn a child towards or away from crime. One has to consider parental responsibility. We address that in the Criminal Justice Bill. One has to consider the opportunities for young people to find useful things to do. One has to consider whether discipline in schools is properly organised. All those factors have an influence on the number of people who eventually become mixed up in the criminal justice system. My noble friend is entirely right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the possibility of a debate was raised during the byplay this afternoon. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House comment upon that? If his reply is that it is a matter for the usual channels, will he undertake to give them a kick, if that is not too mixed a metaphor?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a matter for the usual channels but I should not be at all disappointed if there were a debate. In so far as I have any influence with the usual channels I shall exercise it.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
5.20 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the House, and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for the fact that I may have to leave before the end of the debate. I have a long-standing commitment in Gloucester.
I wish to remind the House briefly of the Churches' long-standing interest in the fate of children no longer in the care of one or both of their natural parents. What is now the Children's Society, for example, was founded well over 100 years ago by an anglican layman, Edward Rudolf. Many noble Lords will remember that its original title was the Central Home for Waifs and Strays. Barnardo's was founded even earlier than that. In those days it was said that there were 25,000 homeless children in London, living on their wits and with no legal protection whatever.
Before the arrival of the welfare state during this century, it was predominantly church-based organisa-tions which cared for those whom we then called the unmarried mother and her children. Threaded through that history has been a determination to protect and to provide proper opportunities in life for children who, for whatever reason, must be brought up by only one parent or without either natural parents.
Surely it is basic to Christian belief and teaching that the Divine order of creation envisages responsible, caring parenthood for every child and by both father and mother. But when that ideal pattern is broken and a lone-parent family results it is only right that the other parent—who in nine cases out of 10 is the father—should at least be recalled to his financial responsibilities if he can afford it and, if necessary, through legislation. I am confident, therefore, that there will be widespread support from the Churches for the principles which underlie the Bill; that is, parental responsibility and the primacy of children and their needs.
It must also be right in principle to provide incentives for lone parents to find work and so reduce dependence on income support from the state. It is a sombre thought that there are now more than 1 million lone-parent families; that is approximately 15 per cent. of all families with children. Perhaps an even more sobering reflection in terms of the future of our children in Britain is the fact that more than 75 per cent. of those 1 million lone parents need income support to make ends meet.

The figures already referred to, which were provided by the Family Policy Studies Centre, indicate that during the 1980s of those lone parents claiming income support the proportion who received maintenance payments from the absent parent fell from 50 per cent. to 23 per cent. The same research suggests that by far the biggest cause for the increase in the number of lone-parent families, with all the attendant handicaps for children, is the catastrophic-ally rising rate of divorce.
804
Those of us in the Churches and elsewhere who do our best to support the stability and permanence of the marriage bond are bound to see in the problem of child support the inevitable judgment that falls upon a society which cannot, it appears, prevent tens of thousands of its citizens, nearly all of them men, from simply walking away from the responsibilities that they have accepted in becoming fathers, in many instances within the married state.
Of course we should pay great heed to the constitutional implications of the Bill, argued so prophetically by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the virtues of family courts, argued by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and no doubt by others. Nevertheless, I believe that the creation of a single, powerful and well-publicised child support agency could be a significant symbol of the nation's will to grapple with the problem of the children who are at risk and suffering as a result of family breakdown.
That is to be warmly welcomed, first, as a sign that society as a whole should accept moral responsibility for all its children and, secondly, because it recognises that the present system for assessing and enforcing child maintenance is in bad need of reform. Within that framework of broad welcome there are bound to be reservations and criticisms from those with particular concerns and interests in the welfare of children and of their parents. No doubt they will have to be dealt with in detail during the later stages of the Bill.
I wish to raise a particular matter which has already attracted comment in the press and in the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. I refer to the proposal to reduce the income support of a lone parent who is not willing to disclose to an investigating officer from the agency the name of the other parent of the child. I believe that, if successful, that expedient would coerce a number of men into some financial responsibility for their children. Furthermore, it would marginally increase the payments coming into the Exchequer from absent fathers. However, one wonders whether such financial benefits would be significant. The White Paper states that only in a small minority of cases is the caring parent reluctant to identify the other parent. Therefore, against that small financial gain to the Treasury we must set the most probable effect of reducing the income support of a lone parent; that will be further deprivation for the child or children.
The Churches can offer plenty of evidence showing how difficult it is for any family nowadays to manage on income support. It is unrealistic to suppose that a mother's income at that level could be reduced by up to 20 per cent., as the White Paper suggests, without the child also suffering.
We appear to have another example of a piece of well intentioned legislation shooting itself in the foot. If we really believe that children come first would it not be better to offer even a small maintenance disregard for lone parents on income support? In other words, would it not be better to substitute the carrot for the stick when dealing with mothers

805
reluctant to name the fathers of their children, particularly as the stick may well land on the children as much as on their mothers?
That may appear to be a small issue against the background of the main provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, it serves to indicate how even small blemishes might expose the Government to perhaps unjust suggestions that they have allowed the so-called interest of the taxpayer to distort or obscure the altogether noble and proclaimed aim of putting children first.
The problem of the rising social security costs of lone parents no doubt needs to be addressed. However, the Bill suitably amended will, one hopes, be seen not in that context but as part of a concerted programme of social reform which supports marriage and family life and reduces divorce and family breakdown as well as offering realistic and practical encouragement to the victims of family breakdown.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the principles behind the Bill; namely, that priority must be given to the well being of children. It is in accord with the Children Act 1989 that the well being of the child is paramount.
It is agreed that an awesome responsibility lies with parents for the care and maintenance of their children, whether within the family or by parents who are separated or divorced. Surely it is right that wherever possible and practicable the parent who has left the matrimonial home—usually the father—should con-tribute to his child's maintenance and in most cases should maintain a parental relationship.
I support the concept of a formula—but only as a guideline—which could establish consistency of assessment throughout the country. According to the Bill, it is recognised that the caring parent would be relieved of pursuing her husband for child maintenance as that would be carried out by the agency.
Those principles are surely right. However, it is difficult to accept that the structure, procedure and methods laid down in the Bill to implement those principles are wise, practicable or, indeed, acceptable. Furthermore, the setting up of an agency within the social security system with a non-negotiable formula will be costly and there is no proof that it will be cost-effective.
The system will be divisive: on the one hand, the agency will deal only with child maintenance; on the other hand, the courts will deal with custody, access, education and housing. Therefore, parents will need to deal with both the agency and the courts. The principle of one door on which to knock, which was established in the Social Services Act 1980, will be abandoned. The diversification will be confusing to parents. Should we not consider those parents who have the care of children?
The very nature of the social security service, as with the Poor Law, makes it unpopular, albeit essential to the needy. However, it is not always acceptable to those outside the social security system. As one who has had to take people to social security offices, I cannot understand how we can help parents
806
if they must get into the social security system when, in the ordinary way, they are not part of it. I admire enormously those who work in the social security system. It is not their fault that visiting a social security office is unacceptable. That is the way it is. It was like that with the Poor Law and it is like that with social security.
The formula will be worked out on a computer and that will surely be inflexible and not negotiable. It must be acknowledged that personal relationships interact with financial arrangements. I do not believe that a computer can take into account personal relationships. As I understand it, child maintenance orders go to the agency which must implement the formula through the computer. Can the computer cover all eventualities? As I said, I understand that whatever comes from the computer will not be negotiable.
I cite a few cases. For example, a husband with considerable financial means voluntarily agrees to pay child maintenance way above the figure of the formula. Later there is a disagreement between his former wife and himself and it is usually about access or education. Neither of those matters is the responsibility of the agency but is the responsibility of the courts. He can go to the agency knowing that he will pay less maintenance. Thus, the child will lose out.
Secondly, let us take the case of a wife who negotiates with her husband to forgo receipt of maintenance but to keep the matrimonial home. That was a matter touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If there is a dispute between them—and I repeat that it is usually about access—will the husband then negotiate through the formula? If so, the mother may lose the matrimonial home.
On appeals, as I understand the Bill, if an appeal is made against the figure put forward by the computer, the appeal goes to a higher member of staff within the social security office. If the appeal is an internal social security matter, then an aggrieved parent has no outside channel of appeal. Therefore, there is no access to a legally-aided hearing in the courts. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will explain how such a system is commensurate with natural justice because in a court, the complainant can be heard.
As regards the relationship between the agency and the courts, as stated earlier the agency deals only with child maintenance orders and the courts with custody, education and housing. If the agency fails to get a man to pay maintenance, I assume that the case must go to court. If he continues to refuse to pay then I believe that the final sanction is prison. In that case, there will be no maintenance for the child or for anyone, but the country will have to pay for the man in prison.
Could not the principles of the Bill be dealt with differently? Could not the Bill transfer the responsibilities of the agency to the courts? I believe that a figure of 4,000 staff was mentioned. Could not those staff be appointed to the courts? If they were so appointed, they would work with the probation service and the courts. The parents would have only one place to go to. Surely those extra staff and the

807
setting up of an agency will be very costly. Even if only half of those staff were appointed to the courts, I believe that more money would be brought in.
Under the Children Act 1989 a first step was taken towards a family court. Could not cases of divorce, including maintenance, be dealt with by the family court? That was a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McGregor. Could not account be taken of the Law Commission's report Grounds for Divorce? If that report takes the form of legislation—and we hope that it will in the next Session—it will provide for a period of one year in which parents can decide between themselves what is to be the position as regards access and maintenance. I believe that if such legislation were to be enacted, there would not be so many problems.
Her Majesty's Government are right to promote a Bill to minimise the non-payment of child maintenance. But for both emotional and financial reasons I believe profoundly that it should not be executed by way of an agency, which is an administrative procedure using a non-negotiable formula. Such matters should be dealt with not by the executive but by the courts.
I am given to understand that a great deal of the Bill is based on what is happening in Australia. However, I was advised that a judge who has just returned from Australia feels that the legislation is not working there. I received that information second-hand and have not been able to contact that judge. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree that the work should come entirely under the jurisdiction of the courts.
Finally, perhaps we should consider the people concerned; that is, the parents. As I said earlier in my speech, the parents will not like the legislation; they will prefer the matter to be dealt with by the courts.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, on the cover of the glossy magazine that we obtained from the printed paper office it says, Children Come First. They do not come first in your Lordships' House; they come third on the day of this Second Reading of the Bill. I thought we had dealt with the intrusion of Statements and debates on Statements in the middle of the business of the day. If we have not done so, then we should have done so. The House of Commons does not behave in this way, allowing Statements made in the House of Lords to be pushed on it right in the middle of a debate. It bides its time and so could we. This is a short debate. It could have been completed before we had the long Statement on the Woolf Report on prisons and the inevitable tail provided by other noble Lords on such an important and complex matter.
This Bill is not a Child Support Bill; it is a taxing Bill. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not certified it as a money Bill and included it as a schedule in the Finance Bill. It imposes a form of taxation upon an identifiable section of the community who will be mostly men; there are to be
808
inspectors who will assess what they shall pay; determine the method and the order in which they shall pay it, and have the power to enforce it.
In short, this tax is PAYT—pay as you are told. It is levied by a separate arm of bureaucracy which is to be especially created for the task. The Bill reflects the outburst of the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, whose concern for children came second to not allowing absentee fathers to get away with nonpayment of maintenance. It is a middle-class approach to the conventional obligations of men towards their children. And it goes much wider than that, even in the context of conventional thought.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon asked many penetrating questions. This is merely the skeleton of the taxing machine which the Bill will erect. There is much that we shall want to know about it; there will be much that we shall not be able to find out about it until the regulations appear. We shall then not be able to change them. We shall have to swallow them or reject them as a whole. That is the position we are in.
One of the matters to consider is from where we shall obtain the army of bureaucrats—the child support inspectors. They will have a task which is probably foreign to most of them. If they come from the Department of Health and Social Security they will know nothing about taxation or about enforcing payments. They cannot even collect their own contributions. That is done by the Inland Revenue. If it is to be efficiently done, I cannot more strongly recommend other than that the inspectors should be drawn from the Inland Revenue who know what the situation entails and are experienced in that kind of activity.
However, we must presumably take the Bill as it stands and see what we can do with it. We must acknowledge that the Bill will cause far more tears, anger, resentment and violence than its authors imagined. It is an intrusion by a new arm of bureaucracy into the most delicate, emotional and difficult aspects of human relationships. It concerns men, women and their children. In the field of child support we all know that we are dealing almost completely with cases of marital breakdowns, disorders and enmities; in many cases love has turned to hate; women do not want to hear any more about their ex-husbands or men friends. Yet in our diligence to collect money and ensure that men do not get away with non-payment of maintenance, we shall penalise women who refuse to pursue their husbands for support if at the same time they seek social security to support their children. They will be fined for taking that step; that is quite wrong. I do not know with what skill, understanding or justice the public detective service—mostly conducted at public expense—will pursue husbands and seek to establish the fulfilment of their obligations to their womenfolk.
The Bill is more concerned with support to the Treasury than support to children. Most of the people in real need on account of the breakdown of the marriage and failure of husbands to pay contributions are in receipt of social security benefits, and they will profit little or not at all from money which may be dragged out of the absent fathers. I do not know

809
whether noble Lords in this House will react as men often do; but I can assure the House that when men are confronted by the kind of situation that may arise when they are accosted and tracked down by the child support officer, they will react in a disagreeable way.
Not all men are responsible for the breakdown in their marriage. Not all women are incapable of looking after their children financially. It may be that under these rules the formula set out in one of the White Papers will be followed: that the joint resources will be brought to bear on the amount which eventually has to be obtained from the absentee father.
One can understand the point of view expressed in a sensitive letter to The Times newspaper this morning by representatives of a group of child charity organisations: that this is the most difficult and delicate field of all. Some regard and respect must be given to people's attitudes towards the partners and the help that is sought to be given in circumstances where they would much rather not have it.
Since when have parents been wholly responsible for the support and upbringing of their children? We do not ask them to pay for their education or health care. They receive housing benefit and protected housing conditions. The parents receive child benefit payments which are tax free. There are numerous supports which are given in the wide range of social benefits for children. What then is so sacrosanct about making the man pay? He has probably set up another family. That is acknowledged in the approach to the resources that a man may have to devote to his old family. It is intolerable that we should pursue in this way the old-fashioned idea that fathers and breadwinners are responsible for the upbringing of their children. We have a new concept of their position in society.
We are now saying that our children are so precious to the future that we must take care of them as never before We must educate them fully; there must be more higher education; they must be given training and jobs must be found for them. We must compete in every way with our European and world competitors whose provision for children is much better than our own. We shall not squeeze and freeze the child benefit payment for several years. We should double it now in order to get more support for our children. We do not hear anything of that kind from the Government. Where are these men who are hiding away? Some of them are underneath the arches. I am astonished that on the subject of homelessness no one has referred to the major report that I had conducted in 1965. The report considered the extent of homelessness and the causes of it. The subject has not been studied so fully since. A great many people have decided to walk out, leave everything behind and take to the road. They are afraid of going back. They are afraid of life as they knew it and do not want to go back. There are plenty like that.
Among young people one gets the rejection of home conditions; but that is by the way. When I see what the child support officer is free to do, we shall need to know a great deal more about the procedures that he will follow. One of the matters that I looked at
810
most carefully was the relationship between the child support officer and the Inland Revenue. There is a great deal of loose talk heard about the poll tax and other matters to the effect that if one wants to know about a person's ability to pay, the Inland Revenue could tell you if it opened its books.
I have looked at Schedule 2 on page 35 which states in paragraph 1(2):
"In such a case, no obligation as to secrecy imposed by statute or otherwise on a person employed in relation to the Inland Revenue shall prevent any information obtained or held in connection with the assessment or collection of income tax from being disclosed".
I ask for a very firm assurance that that does not mean that the confidentiality of a taxpayer's private affairs is to be broken to let the child support officer have a free run in order to find out about a person's resources and likely ability to pay. I have been assured that this provision relates only to tracing people, and that it is not intended to breach the confidentiality of the Inland Revenue.
I shall not delay the House on the imperative need for keeping the confidentiality of the Inland Revenue. I assure noble Lords that if the books of the Inland Revenue are to be opened to other departments to any extent and to child support officers, police officers and any one else of that kind, then the efficiency of our tax system will be seriously impaired. We cannot give to child support officers information that the Inland Revenue does not give under the Royal prerogative in cases involving criminal offences. Information is not given in that regard except in the rare cases where the Inland Revenue puts its prerogative in the hands of the court to decide.
These are important matters. Perhaps the Inland Revenue should be there to help the child support officers to trace someone; and information must be supplied by employers and others who hold information. My noble friend Lord Mishcon, who penetrated this Bill with great skill and feeling, referred to the powers that these officers will have. The approach suggested is not right. It should be combined with measures that have a wider import altogether.
Widowhood is a respectable condition, and the social security system rightly shows concern for the bereavement and possible plight. It provides for disablement, sickness and constant attendance. It does many things for many people. That is all part of the structure of our social security system which is intended to put the citizen in a reasonable relationship with his fellow men and women. The separated or divorced wife has never been regarded as a respectable woman. In many cases it is believed that if she is in that condition, it is her own fault. We should now regard divorce, separation and the exposure of children on that account as a hazard of considerable relevance to life as it is at the present time.
It would be a good idea for the social insurance scheme to include this problem as one of life's hazards for men and women and for the benefit of children. There should be no blame attached. People should be allowed to make fresh starts to their lives. Children cannot come first all the time while mothers and

811
fathers have to reconstruct their own lives and try to get something from them. My approach may be unconventional, but what I suggest will come about one day. We are saying that children should come first so we should put them first. We shall have to discard a good deal of conventional thinking about parental obligations. We shall certainly have to get rid of the idea that men should not be allowed to get away with their obligations. There is not much that men are allowed to get away with these days. I see no reason why they should be held rigidly in almost any circumstances to a conventional approach to the obligation to support their children.
This foretells that the Committee stage will be very penetrating. The Government should be ready with some indication of what the procedures and guidelines are to be in the exercise of the responsibilities of child support officers. This is a risky venture into a new field of human relationships which, under the system proposed, offers the danger that in the end we shall do a great deal more harm to children than is caused by the present system.
My final word is this. Many men, if required to contribute to the support of children, will demand access. Many separated wives do not want them to have that. They will often forgo payments from the husband in order that he shall not disturb the household long after he has left; long after he has obligations elsewhere. I have had no personal experience of this. I have no children, and I have not been put in this situation in any sense at all. But 10 years of broadcasting on social problems—many of them human, domestic and personal—and 25 years in the House of Commons brings one very close indeed to this problem. The fundamentals of it are the same today as they were 25 and 30 years ago. All we are doing now is to chase people who are defaulters. We turn defaulters into delinquents, and that is what this Bill is intending to do.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect the arresting opening of the dystopian novel by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. It opens in a laboratory with a row of test tubes in which human ova are being fertilised and increased. I do not think even those who in the last Session were favourable to in vitro fertilisation would wish that to be a universal system. On the contrary, what we have and what is almost universally applauded is the nuclear family to bring up the young who are the future of our society. Perhaps the cover to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred presents an idealistic picture. Nevertheless it shows what is generally accepted—the felicities and ecstasies that can exist in a nuclear family where there are young children.
It is true that at the bottom right-hand corner of the cover there is the child of a broken home. It is with him and his sister that your Lordships are concerned today. Nevertheless I venture to reject entirely what was seemingly suggested by the noble Lord who preceded me, that parents have no place to play in the
812
upbringing of a child in the context of the welfare state. On the contrary, society has three jobs to do in this connection. The first is to see that the father plays his part in the maintenance of the child. The noble Lord, with his free-ranging mind, alone in your Lordships' debate, asks why should that be so. The answer is that it should be so because society affords to the father privileges in relation to the upbringing of his child. It does that through a long tradition, believing firmly on the basis of tradition and long experience that that is of benefit to the child. It has not been so in every society. In Sparta, the child was brought up largely in the public domain. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would really wish to see that in our society. Therefore, the first job of society is to see that the father provides for his child. That is the first salient motive of the Bill.
The second job is to see that the child does not suffer from any inadequacy of the father in what is required of him. The noble Lord quite rightly refers to all the benefits that the social services afford. That is a continuing obligation on society because it is on the children of society that the continuance of society depends.
The third job for society is to see to it that there is less breakdown of marriage. The right reverend Prelate, who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, mentioned that one of our objectives was to see that there was less divorce. The figures given in the White Paper are indeed striking. In 1971, which was when the Divorce Reform Act 1969 came into force, there were fewer than 600,000 one-parent families. In 1986 there were well over a million of them, and the figure is rising. That is the third function of society, and one we should not forget even when we are concentrating on the first, and to some extent, on the second.
At the moment, as the White Paper points out, these matters are dealt with at a great number of courts, most importantly in the magistrates' courts, and the White Paper rightly points to the wide discrepancy of decisions. That is so partly because they are fallible human beings who have to make the decisions and it is partly because of the very wide discrepancy of circumstances. What the Bill does is to replace for the fallible human variation of view, a bureaucratic—that was the word rightly used by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—formula, a bed of Procrustes. That can quite as well be capricious. Is it the toes that are cut off, or the hair if one is lucky enough to have it, or the top of one's head? We must not think that we are going to get away from variation of the circumstances by applying this formula.
I would draw attention to the extraordinary nature of the formula. It is on page 30, in Schedule 1. I ask your Lordships: how many maintenance debtors or creditors, how many citizens' advice bureaux, can possibly make head or tail of what it means? It is just as incomprehensible as the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs must have been to an illiterate peasant in the Nile delta. It would not matter so much if the background of the Bill were less bureaucratic. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to that. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack rather disarmingly said that there was an unusual number of

813
provisions for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put it rather more harshly. He suggested that this is no more than a skeleton Bill and as such he implied that it was unconstitutional. Certainly it is gravely derogatory of parliamentary control. So what we have is a bureaucratic formula which is to be administered, as has been pointed out, by a considerable bureaucracy: 4,700 people of whom 2,200 are to be newly recruited and added to our existing bureaucracy. Is that what we want?
However, one hardly stops at that point because the child support agency is divorced from the courts which have to deal with wife maintenance. It is common experience that one cannot possibly consider maintenance for the children of the marriage separately from that for the wife. However, it is more than that; it is a step away, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords today, from the concept of the family court.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack introduced a Commons amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Bill which provided for specialised county courts of matrimonial jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, greeted it warmly as a step towards the family court. I ventured to support him in that view. However, my noble and learned friend put it more delicately but did not in fact dissent from that view. He said that it was a step towards a system of uniform family jurisdiction which may achieve what had been described in other terms—the "other terms" being the family court.
I know that the Government have now got the matter belatedly under consideration. However I am bound to point out that a system of family courts, a hierarchy of family courts, was spelt out in detail and proposed to the Morton Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce in the mid-1950s. Thereafter it gathered support, notably from a very experienced matrimonial judge, Judge Jean Graham Hall. After that time, it received support from the Family Law Committee of the Law Society and then from the council of the Law Society. That support was voiced in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual cogency. Since that time it has received further support from a Member of this House with incomparable experience and zeal; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It was subsequently endorsed by the Finer Report on One-parent Families, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, has already pointed out. We very much regret the premature death of Mr. Justice Finer, but it is splendid that his lieutenant on that committee is present in the Chamber in the form of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, to draw attention to what was spelt out in the report in favour of the family court.
I have another question for my noble and learned friend. By the time—I hope not too distant—that the Government have made up their mind preferably in favour of family courts, will it be too late to marry the child support agency into a system of family courts? It has been envisaged that the family court should have two branches: one for adjudication and the other for
814
welfare. Welfare would include conciliation, but it would also include matters which will be the concern of the child support agency if it is accepted.
I have a further question for my noble and learned friend, although it is probably something which I should have found out for myself. However, I was unable to do so. What will be the effect of the formula on the normal nuclear family which has broken up, where the husband will have less earning power and below average earnings because, as the White Paper pointed out, these marriages break up earlier? That situation was envisaged at the time of the 1969 Act. In the debate which took place recently, I mentioned that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham had prophesied that the effect of the 1969 Act would be more divorce and more breakup of marriages. That was also seen by the proponents of the matter, although it was not announced until afterwards.
After that Bill had passed into law, the very able parliamentary officer of the Divorce Reform Group, which was the pressure group behind the Bill, said that society must make up its mind and get used to the idea that marriages will now normally break up in the early 20s of the spouses. That is spelt out by the White Paper which your Lordships are considering. Taking people of that age and their earnings into consideration, can my noble and learned friend say what the formula puts forward in the case of a typical family which the White Paper suggests has one child under the age of five years, with the other, presumably, being about seven? At present, I am completely in the dark as to whether the formula will produce anything more favourable for the caring mother living on her own with her children.
We have all applauded, with the exception of the noble Lord sitting to my right, the object of making the father of a broken home continue to support his child. That is very much in the main tradition, if I may say so, of the parties on the Opposition Benches. Not for the first time, the noble Lord is out on his own. We support that aim. However, I am bound to say that we regard the Bill with the utmost chariness and wariness. We shall certainly have to examine its more bureaucratic aspects with the greatest care in Committee.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when the White Paper was published on 29th October the Government invited comments upon it and said that they would be taken into account. However, it is certain that those comments have not been published. Moreover, just a few weeks after publication of the White Paper, we now have a very complex Bill before us. I am surprised that the Government did not pay more heed to what was said and publish the comments received from various organisations with the expertise. In such a matter it would have been just as well to have had a pre-legislative committee or hearing on the Bill. Even at this late stage, especially bearing in mind that the Bill has received little wholehearted support in the debate so far, it may be as well for the

815
Government to reconsider their attitude, to withdraw the Bill and to set up a pre-legislative hearing before they get themselves into a great deal of trouble.
I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the manner in which he presented and explained the Bill. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Mishcon on his admirable speech and his reservations about the Bill which I share. The Bill is not about putting children first but about saving the Exchequer an estimated £400 million per annum in social security expenditure. I am not opposed to attempts to reduce expenditure on lone parents, but the Bill, with its draconian powers and anti-father bias, is not the best way to achieve a reduction in the cost of lone-family support. The need is to reverse present attitudes toward marriage and the family and to make every attempt to encourage stable and lasting relationships, especially where children are involved.
The Government and the Bill fail to recognise that children need emotional as well as financial care and that emotional support is best provided within a stable family and preferably within a two-parent home. The Bill does nothing to bring about that position. Instead, it seeks to make scapegoats of fathers and ensures that they will be pursued with vigour and forced to pay for the maintenance of their children. There are no provisions in the Bill to ensure that they have access to their children and an opportunity to form relation-ships with them. Make no mistake about it —fathers are just as entitled as mothers to that right.
Having said that, I welcome the idea of laying down a formula for the level of such support, although even that will need some modification if it is to succeed. Whether that formula needs a separate agency to administer it is open to question. My noble friend Lord Mishcon and other noble Lords have questioned the need for a huge agency to administer the system. I support my noble friend and other noble Lords in their desire and call for family courts to be considered and set up.
I now return to the subject of access. I understand that, in theory at least, access and financial provision should not be linked. However, in practice in many cases they are inextricably linked in the minds of fathers. We have little information about how many maintenance defaults are due to access problems. Many men are willing to pay proper maintenance for their children but often find that they are wilfully obstructed from seeing their children or forming any relationship with them even when access has been granted by the courts. The Bill does nothing to address that problem, and it is a serious omission that should be redressed. I understand that in the United States, where there has been long-established legislation for the efficient collection of maintenance payments from non-custodial parents, new laws to ensure access had to be introduced before the enforced collection of maintenance became generally acceptable and efficient. We should study the experience of the United States.
The Bill is highly complex and as a result many details of the enforcement system are, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, to be brought in by
816
regulation or advice which will have the force of law. Consequently, if the legislation is passed unamended there will be no opportunity for the House and another place to discuss the details of the scheme, and there will be no scope to improve the affirmative and negative orders which will be placed before Parliament if the Bill receives Royal Assent. I understand that 100 references to orders are contained in the Bill. Therefore, if the Bill is passed unamended we shall be handing over to the Government powers to introduce a most illiberal and oppressive regime against a section of the population which is so often unjustly maligned by society.
That brings me to the Bill's provisions relating to child support officers and inspectors which are contained in Clauses 11 to 13. Although they have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, it is worth referring to them again. In relation to child support officers Clause 11 states:
"(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint persons (to be known as child support officers) for the purpose of exercising functions—

(a) conferred on them by this Act, or by any other enactment; or

(b) assigned to them by the Secretary of State".

If we pass the Bill unamended, the Secretary of State will have absolute power to give, without Parliament's approval, draconian powers to those child support officers.
Clause 13 relates to inspectors. My noble friend has already mentioned the fact that an inspector will have the power,

"(a) to enter at all reasonable times any premises which may be inspected under this section; and

(b) to make such examination and enquiry there as he considers appropriate".

Further, subsection (5) provides:
"If required to do so by an inspector exercising powers conferred on him by this section, any person who is or has been—

(a) an occupier of the premises in question;

(b) an employer or an employee working at or from those premises;

(c) carrying on at or from those premises an agency or other business of a kind mentioned in subsection (3) (b);

(d) an employee or agent of any person mentioned in paragraph (a) to (c),

shall furnish to the inspector all such information and documents as the inspector may reasonably require for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)".
Wide and sweeping powers are to be given to inspectors to pursue not criminals, thieves or muggers, but parents. The Government have overdone that part. This country is becoming less and less of a democracy and more like the centralised bureaucratcies of Eastern Europe which are now being discarded by so many countries.
We then have to consider the collection of maintenance payments. Under the Bill it is not just wages and salaries that can be attached, and money, assets and property, including unessential furnishings, that can be seized; but, if none of those things is available, it will be possible to commit a defaulter to prison. As far as I am aware, that will be the only civil debt for which a prison sentence is available. It is remarkable that we should introduce such a provision into the Bill.
I understood that we were trying to keep people out of prison. Yet in the Bill there is a provision to commit

817
to prison people merely because they have incurred, not a tax debt, but a civil debt. It is quite disgraceful that parents in financial default should be treated in a worse manner in many cases than thieves, muggers and what-have-you. What is more, bearing in mind that women are increasingly becoming quite independent, going out to work and indeed leaving their children in the care of their husbands, what is society going to say if a woman refuses to pay her assessed maintenance? What will society say if we commit a woman to prison? Will society be happy about that? Under this Bill it will be possible, as I have said, and surely we are not suggesting that we should increase our prison population by sending to prison fathers or mothers who default on their maintenance payments. Surely there are many other punishments available, including community service orders, which would certainly be far better not only for the families concerned but for society as well.
As I said earlier, I believe that this is a bad Bill. It contains draconian measures which are against the normal practice of our democratic society. I do not believe that they are acceptable; nor do I believe that they will deal with the very serious problem over maintenance payments that exists. I hope the Government will listen to what is being said and to the voices that have been raised against this Bill, because it will be an administrative nightmare. I hope that they will remember the advice they received about the poll tax, which we said would be an administrative nightmare and something that could not be properly administered. Bearing these things in mind, I hope that even at this stage the Government will take the Bill away and look at it again. If they do not, then I hope that your Lordships will amend it during later stages beyond all recognition.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, while I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, or indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I have a good deal of sympathy for some of the things they have said. Speaking as a mere father, I feel that "harassment" is one of the unwritten words in this Bill and those who use invisible ink will see it quite clearly on every page.
However, I am glad to be able to say that I support the intentions of the Bill although I believe it should be amended in very drastic ways. Also, greatly daring, I am going to express the opinion that I like the way the Bill is drafted, despite what has been said by the noble and learned Lord in front of me and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Incidentally, the use of formulae was cordially recommended by the Renton Committee and I do not dissent from the formulae in Schedule 1 at all. However, I sympathise with the constitutional and other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, though, as I say, I like the drafting of the Bill.
It is indeed the intention of the Bill that children should come first but occasionally I feel that, with the best will in the world and perhaps inadvertently, the Bill puts the child last. In pursuit of the Bill's purposes
818
you have a number of licensed "hounds" who may harass the parent for the purpose of serving a maintenance assessment, and indeed they can harass the parent for the enforcement of payments of child maintenance. I think that in a way there is a feeling that the defaulter must not be allowed to get away with it—that this is of paramount concern and that it is unfair to those who stick with their wives and children and look after them if those who run away from them are allowed to get away with it. This system, which is instilled into this corps of "harassers" may well be against the child's interests. He may not wish to have his father pursued in this way and indeed he may not wish that his mother should be harassed into revealing the whereabouts of her absent husband, when she may have very good cause for withholding the information.
I understand that the mother may lose up to 20 per cent. of her personal allowance if she withholds this information. That is not to the benefit of the child, I would say; yet that is one of the provisions of the Bill. It looks as if there are something like 30 per cent. of lone parents who fail to comply with requests to help trace the fathers of their children. I may have got the percentage wrong but certainly it is not anywhere near a majority, and it is those people who are going to be harassed, as I say.
Therefore I would merely ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether in the pursuit of fugitive fathers and in the securing of maintenance enforcement—which, incidentally, I support—there is any provision for these "hounds" to be less than relentless. Can there be incorporated into the provisions of the Bill some provision for relaxation where it appears to be in the paramount interest of the child that the uttermost pursuit of the law conferred by this Bill should not actually take place?
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke, he referred to cases of incest or rape, where matters would not be pursued so rigorously. There must be other cases as well. For instance, what about a father who is mentally ill, whose spirit is already broken or who is perhaps suffering from severe depression? It is not right to pursue people who are in that sort of condition, especially as, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, they might well be underneath the arches, sleeping in the open and unable to put themselves on their feet, let alone look after their wives and children. Therefore I should rather like to know what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might say about relaxing the powers or giving this new corps of harassing servants of the Crown some kind of discretion in the cases I have mentioned. If that could be done, it might possibly save some amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage. I would certainly hope so.
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in what he said about family courts. I wish to goodness they were with us now, because they would be able to offer, I imagine, some kind of conciliation service. That is what we really need, but the family courts still seem quite far away. After all, if there were family courts they could be the authority

819
for assessment, collection and enforcement of payments for child maintenance. Surely it would be wise now to incorporate into this Bill some kind of conciliation service. Such a service could take much of the pain out of the process involved in obtaining child support from an absent parent and it could ease the tensions following a marital breakdown.
I do not myself see that the child support agency, which, as I say, is rather cast in the role of hound of the parents, could possibly take on the guise of conciliator, which would not fall naturally to it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor envisages that it could fill that as well as its present role. If not, who could do it? I should have thought that the House would agree that a conciliation service was essential in this context.
Another general point which has been made concerns how the recent changes in the income maintenance system impinge upon the Bill. I do not know how single parents in work may be affected as regards their access to the social fund. A number of points of that kind should be pursued in Committee, particularly the need to increase basic levels of income support, to reform the social fund and to maintain the value of child benefit.
The breakdown of the family and all that it entails for the child is bad enough for children in relatively prosperous homes. The troubles are compounded for the poor, and every consideration should be given to children who suffer doubly from poverty and from family breakdown.
In one of the interruptions to our debate we heard the Statement on the report of Lord Justice Woolf on the prison system. Here I find myself very much in accord with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It is infinitely depressing that on the very same day we are considering a Bill which contains a provision for sending parents to prison for maintenance default. That is disgusting. Could we not take a risk, have some imagination and get rid of Clause 32 altogether? This coincidence of the Statement on the Woolf Report and our consideration of this Bill gives us good cause to do so. Thus we should strike a minor blow in the battle to keep out of prison so that they may be otherwise dealt with those who come up against the provisions of the legislation.
In addition we should think about the child brought up not only in an emotionally fractured family but in dire poverty because that young person is likely to enter the world of juvenile crime and thereafter, if we do not rescue him from it, to lead a life of crime. It is well understood that the combination of a fractured family and poverty, among other things, leads to a life of crime. Those of us who are fortunate enough not to have been brought up in a fractured family or in poverty really should exercise our imagination and consider whether, if we had been brought up in those surroundings, we should not be early candidates for the criminal justice system.
Given the really fragile position in which young people in broken and very poor homes find
820

themselves, the impact of this Bill should be modified. The reforms which I am suggesting are those which alleviate the hounding of both parents which could be detrimental not only to those parents but also to the children.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, if your Lordships had not realised before this debate that the Bill gives rise to mixed feelings it must surely be appreciated now. This is a Bill born of the view that not enough fathers are paying towards the support of their children and that those who do pay are not paying enough. I was going to say that one can but agree with those views, even if it means pleading guilty to the charge by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, of middle-class morality.
I assume that the answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is that in the normal typical case of two parents with two children the father will henceforth be expected to pay rather more than he might, now on average, if he came before the courts.
If it were simply a question of enforcement, the recent Maintenance Enforcement Bill will add to the existing armoury of the courts, although even then further measures could have been introduced to deal with the really recalcitrant non-payer. For example, I should have thought that greater use could have been made of the tax collection system to extract maintenance. If it were simply a question of raising the general quantum of maintenance, it might be possible simply to specify a statutory minimum contribution, perhaps to be uprated with child benefits, although we all know that child benefits are not uprated often enough. It might also be possible to tie child maintenance more closely to another yardstick such as the foster care allowances. Those foster care allowances bring home the true costs of caring for children, and they cater for special cases such as handicapped children.
I see on the cover of the White Paper, to which reference has already been made by several noble Lords, a picture of a handicapped child, but I do not see in the body of the White Paper or in the Bill itself special provision being made for handicapped children. The Bill and the White Paper reflect the reality that the social security system has tended to discourage attempts to claim against fathers unless there is some prospect of success. The mother and the child are usually no better off whether or not the father contributes unless the payments are enough to take the recipients out of the income support bracket and are sufficiently above it to escape the poverty trap. By "the poverty trap" one is referring to the extra benefits which can be lost if one loses income support, such as free school meals and free prescriptions.
Furthermore, the courts have hitherto been discouraged from backdating child maintenance orders to cover periods when the recipients were on state benefits. That would involve the mother having to repay the benefit out of money received, perhaps many months later.

821
I do not regard this Bill as a reflection on the job done hitherto by the courts. Under statutory criteria the courts balance the needs and resources of all concerned with greater flexibility than the Bill would allow the new agency. It is very rare for a father completely to indemnify a mother against all the costs of maintaining the child or children. More often, the court is faced with three potential sources of contribution—the mother, the father and the state—and tries to strike a balance. In particular it has to decide the proper contribution by the mother and the father.
This Bill replaces that flexibility with rigidity, or at least it greatly reduces the flexibility which the courts have had hitherto when looking at and reallocating the family finances as a whole, both as to income and capital. The Bill does so by taking the matter out of the hands of the courts. That is provided for in Clause 7(1), the English of which is ghastly. It does so also with a series of formulae designed to produce an inescapable minimum contribution by a parent to or for his child, as I understand it.
To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it seems particularly hard to provide for a system of conciliation when what is being applied is a mechanical formula. The question for this House will be whether the laudable ends of this legislation justify the means. In particular we should ask whether the creation of a new arm or, perhaps more appropriately, a new tentacle of the state, the child support agency—which is not actually given that name by the Bill—is the best way forward.
The financial effects and the cost effectiveness of the Bill strike one as speculative to say the least. The courts service could certainly do with some of the new staff that will be allocated to the new agency to enable the courts to do better the job which they already do well.
The agency will deal with cases in which its services are not really required, either because the means are adequate and the case is not an incomes support kind of case, or because the means are so minimal that there is only one answer. As the primary concern of the Government is to save state benefit, I should have thought that it would be appropriate to confine the new agency, at least in the early stages, to state benefit cases. It could perhaps help in other cases by publishing guidelines which will enable the courts to provide for a greater and more consistent level of maintenance, for example by reference to foster care allowances. I have already referred to those allowances.
Frankly, I doubt whether the agency will have the expertise of the courts, or will ever have the resources to deal effectively with difficult and devious fathers or former husbands. I would mention in particular in this regard the self-employed cash operator with a creative accountant. There will inevitably be duplication of effort where the mother is entitled to go to the court for maintenance for herself. It seems quite absurd that there should be such a duplication of effort, and consequential expense and waste of time.
822
The machinery envisaged by the Bill will undoubtedly be difficult to operate. The formulae strive to meet the argument that they are too rigid in such ways that they seem almost too sophisticated for their own good. In other ways they may not be sophisticated enough. We do not know what the position will be as it is all to be left to regulations that are as yet unseen. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned most effectively, clean break capital orders or settlements may be made much less easy to achieve in matrimonial disputes. There can, of course, never be a complete clean break when minor children are involved. It is less easy to have a capital clean break as between the adults if it is feared that there will be a continuing liability to maintenance of a substantial nature.
Paragraph 4.12 of the first volume of Children Come First seemed to foreshadow a discounting of maintenance in favour of a father who gives up all his interest in the home. Has this been provided for in the Bill? I believe it may be covered in the regulations which will be made under the terms of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. However, I should be grateful for confirmation of that.
I accept that this is not an easy matter to deal with. It may be thought that to give the father credit for giving up his interest in the home is being artificially fair. A child costs no less to keep whether the father has given up all ownership of the home or has simply given up occupation and the use of his capital interest in the property for a deferred period which could last a good many years. It is a matter of considerable importance to the practitioners to know how this provision is to operate. We need to know that now because we have to advise people now how the law will work in the future. We need to know whether we can advise people now to agree to forgo their capital interest in their matrimonial home in the expectation that they will have a lesser maintenance obligation, or whether we should say, "No. You will in fact always be liable for possibly quite a significant amount of maintenance. I would not advise you therefore to give up your interest in your home which may be paid to you at some future date".
It is by no means clear to me that a father who agrees to make a capital settlement on a child can now do so confident that there will be no further claims on him. In 1982 the Law Commission recommended a power to allow a once and for all capital settlement on a child—in the context of the Law Commission's report those were children born out of wedlock—in cases where the father wanted no further relationship with that child. That power was given by the Family Law Reform Act 1987. It is useful in certain types of case. Cases are being settled on that basis. But, again, if there is now to be some comeback from the state demanding maintenance which it was thought had been capitalised, it is appropriate that we should know about it.
Will the formula provision be flexible enough to deal with flexible and transitional arrangements which parties make for themselves? I am conscious of the fact that some special cases are provided for in Clause 34, and that it is not meant to be an exhaustive list as

823
I read the provisions of that clause. However, it is also a clause which provides for regulations to be made but does not tell us very much about how its provisions will work in practice. For example, it does not tell us how they will work where the care and expense of the child are shared on an alternating basis, or where there are generous access arrangements, or where a child is at a boarding school for say three-fifths of the year, particularly when that is being paid for or has been paid for in the past out of income or capital, with some sacrifice, when the family were together in happier times.
We must also remember that not all relationships end abruptly or tidily. A father or husband may go away and come back. A mother may go away and come back. There are cases where a husband continues to meet domestic bills months or even years after the separation. Those kind of arrangements must be covered. In other words, before we approve this legislation, we must be confident that the new formulae will cater for the great variety of factual situations which will arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to access. This is a sensitive subject. In that regard I approve of the approach of the White Paper. The questions of access and of maintenance must in law, and as far as possible in practice, be separated one from the other. For a father to say, "No access, no maintenance" seems to me as unattractive as for a mother to say "No maintenance, no access". Access and maintenance must be separate questions.
There are other matters that we shall have to consider in Committee. There is the matter of stepchildren. I am surprised that stepchildren, who have become a "child of the family" within the sense given by the matrimonial causes legislation, are not covered, and will not be covered, by the Bill, but recourse may be made to the courts, as hitherto.
There are other matters such as the watered down proposals of the White Paper to penalise mothers who fail to co-operate. Those provisions are now to be found in Clause 22. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us there would be a range of exceptions, and that the matter would be dealt with sensitively. Surely this is a matter of such importance that it should be spelt out clearly in the Bill. If there are to be cases where penalties are to be applied—there is no other adequate word to describe the situation—there should be express statutory criteria and express statutory defences so that the circumstances are clearly defined on the face of the Bill. I entirely echo what the right reverend Prelate said about carrots and not sticks. I had already made a note of that before he spoke. It is certainly a question of incentives and not penalties in that particularly sensitive area.
Another sensitive matter is the proposal in the White Paper to deduct 5 per cent. from the income support of fathers who are in receipt of that benefit or other state benefits. The provisions are to be found in Clause 35. They seem to me to be utterly pointless. The courts have always recognised that payers who
824
are on state benefit, or near state benefit level, should not be taken below subsistence level. A deduction of 5 per cent. from state benefits is not just a token deduction; it is a real deduction and it will be hard felt. It will probably also be utterly pointless, particularly if there is to be no corresponding benefit to the child. I do not believe that Clause 35 provides any corresponding benefit to the child.
Finally, in my view we should not approve of the proposal to reduce the parental care element in the maintenance requirement as children grow older. Older children are in no less need of proper care and supervision. They are no less expensive. We all know that they are more expensive. The underlying intention is to encourage mothers to go out to work, but that raises the spectre of latchkey children. The maintenance disregards are to be provided but it is my impression that they are inadequate, the incentives are inadequate and the protection for the children in that area is inadequate. Those are matters that we shall have to look at in Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this very important Bill has been the subject of a balanced response from your Lordships. On the one hand strong reservations have been expressed about many of its provisions and constructive suggestions have been put forward. We can already see the shape of many of the amendments which will be tabled in Committee. On the other hand most of those who have spoken this evening have warmly welcomed the intention to speed up the procedures for obtaining, collecting and updating child maintenance orders and also to provide for their efficient enforcement. Those features of the Bill, subject only to our reservations about the machinery, represent an enormous improvement on the present situation, which is totally unsatisfactory. We all agree that that reform is long overdue.
I am also left with the firm impression that there is broad support for the principle that maintenance should be calculated by reference to a fair and objective formula. That will tend to make for more consistency throughout the country. It should also ensure that many mothers with a low income will receive higher maintenance awards. Therefore that part of the Bill is also seen by many of us as a step forward.
However, there are concerns about the rigidity of the formula. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall have to set ourselves to open up the maintenance formula in order to clarify or refine—and possibly change—some of its elements. For example, many of the voluntary organisations which have written to us have told us that they fear that the formula as it stands may not provide a fair balance between the interests and the needs of the first and second families and that it may in consequence threaten the stability of the second family, or of both families. If that were to happen what then will have been achieved?
It is not an easy balance to achieve where a father is on low earnings of £150 a week, as many are in my part of the country, and expected to contribute out of

825
that £150 a week towards the maintenance of two families. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, made that point. One cannot extract a quart from a pint pot.
The Bill introduces other profound changes which in turn raise many important issues which are the cause of criticism and concern. We have heard of the 94 sets of regulations which we have not as yet seen. Those regulations may well reveal further grounds for anxiety. As I understand it, we shall be powerless to amend those regulations. In that connection I listened with deep concern to the impressive speeches of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Your Lordships are anxious to hear the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and in the time available I cannot possibly pick up all of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made. I shall therefore focus on three main areas of concern. The first relates to the two critical powers which can be exercised or activated by the child support agency, namely the power to make deductions from income support of the absent father even though he has no assessable income apart from social security benefit and the power to be exercised by the adjudication officer to reduce the income support payable to the mother who feels unable to co-operate with the child support agency.
I was glad to hear the criticism of those powers expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. The powers have been variously described as harsh, petty, miserable and appalling. They have provoked widespread criticism and concern from a wide range of voluntary bodies promoting the welfare of children or with experience of working with families with handicapped children, one-parent families in adverse circumstances and families affected by the breakdown of marriage.
I have tried to analyse the briefings that we have received from nine voluntary organisations: the Child Poverty Action Group, the Children's Society, the National Children's Bureau, Church Action on Poverty, the Legal Action Group, the National Council for One Parent Families, MENCAP, the Spastics Society and the Campaign for Work group. Those are responsible organisations which have already earned the applause of your Lordships for their sterling work over the years. We have received the benefit of their opinion; surely it behoves us to listen to their message. I believe that they are saying something very important.
Apart from the National Council for One Parent Families, all of the organisations want those two powers rejected outright. I believe that the National Council for One Parent families would reluctantly go along with those powers subject to certain conditions. Both powers involve important principles on which we cannot afford to be silent in the course of a Second Reading debate.
Why and how can an absent father make a contribution to a child's support if he has no income
826
apart from income support? It is claimed in the White Paper that he should suffer that deduction in order to bring home to him that he can never walk away from his responsibility to his dependent children. In the abstract most of us would agree that that proposition has some attraction. However, in the context of the Bill your Lordships will wish to weigh that proposition against the basic principle that the individual has the right to a basic income which is set at subsistence level and that it is the duty of the state to maintain it.
We are asked to give the agency the power, via the adjudication officer, to penalise the mother who feels unable to co-operate with the agency. As I understand it, that is the combined effect of Clauses 5 and 22. Noble Lords who read the briefing from the Child Poverty Action Group may recall that it found it necessary and right to advise the House that, if that power is granted, it will be the first time in the history of this country that a person will have been coerced into co-operation under the threat of loss of state benefits.
If that advice is sound, it gives us an indication of the significance and gravity of that power.
I should like to quote just two sentences from the briefing that we received from the Spastics Society:
"The possibility that there should be sanctions to ensure the naming of an absent parent so that maintenance can be collected by the Agency is a cause of grave concern to the Spastics Society. Where a relationship has foundered on the birth of a disabled child, such measures might put unnecessary and regrettable pressure on the caring parent who might prefer to sever connections with as little pain as possible".
I suggest that those sensitive words give a glimpse of the pressures and worries that can build up if the child support officer has the power to authorise deductions.
The White Paper suggested that the mother should be exempt from complying with the requirements of Clause 5 in cases of rape and incest. That is not mentioned in the Bill. But, as the quotation from the briefing of the Spastics Society illustrates, there will be many other situations in which that power should not be activated. I hope that the Government can see their way clear to abandoning those two powers. If not, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon and other noble Lords have pointed out, the grounds for the exercise of those powers must be carefully delineated in the body of the Bill.
I now turn to the second main area of concern. The Bill will force all parents who seek an enforceable child support order to use the new child support agency, which will be a semi-independent agency within the Department of Social Security and accountable to the Secretary of State for Social Security. With two minor exceptions, the courts will have no power to make, vary or revoke a child maintenance order.
But is there a need for a separate agency, independent of the courts? Is there a need to spend so much money on assembling and setting up the agency? Is there a need to recruit 2,200 staff, with, it is hoped, the necessary skills to meet the demands of that body? Is that necessary?

827
From the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who has immense experience in this field and possesses a network of contacts, we have heard testimony that the parents do not want such a separate agency, independent of the courts. I quoted the nine voluntary organisations and I must accept that four of them support setting up a single agency, even though it will be independent of the courts. On the other hand, if I understood them correctly the Law Society and the Justices Clerks' Society believe that the establishment of new machinery is unnecessary. For my part I believe that new machinery is necessary but it should be part of a wider strategy than that aimed at reducing public expenditure in this particular area.
Over the years many noble Lords have strongly advocated setting up a family court. But, if that is not acceptable to the Government, we should not move away from the concept of a family court—as we shall do, as we see it, if we set up an independent agency. Would it not have been better at this stage to go for a middle solution, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—a middle solution which would permit the courts to continue to make, vary and revoke child maintenance orders but at the same time would enable the agency to develop as the welfare arm of the court to collect and monitor payments and put in motion the enforcement proceedings. Would it not be better if the agency and the courts were to work in partnership? That would also be a means to advance in the direction of a family court.
We should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether that opportunity has in fact been lost? If it has been lost, we shall have the two different jurisdictions. Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that they cannot be in conflict from time to time? I ask the question; I am not sure of the answer. Suppose that the parties are hostile and contest one another's financial statements. What would happen if the agency and the court reach different and inconsistent findings? I am not sure of the implications of such a conflict.
My third concern relates to the damage which the scheme can do to the negotiations leading to a post-divorce property settlement. That worry has been voiced by the Law Society and practitioners. There is very little that I can add to what has been said so forcefully by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. But this aspect of the scheme has also been criticised by Mr. John Eekelaar, a Fellow of Pembroke College, who recently addressed a meeting of the parliamentary group for children which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. We found his guidance to be particularly helpful.
It is clear that if the Bill is passed, even where the parties have negotiated the terms of a package settlement, its child support element will not be binding on the agency but must always be assessed separately by the agency in accordance with a maintenance formula. That will bring its perils. It may be said, "Well, if the parties feel that the agency's assessment would be inconsistent with their own
828
wishes, they need not go to the agency, leaving the child support as a voluntary non-enforceable agreement". That has one huge snag. Clause 8 leaves it wide open for either party to go thereafter to the agency and obtain a child support order in terms of a maintenance formula even though the resort to the agency in those circumstances was totally contrary to the agreement arrived at between the parties and was in total breach of a settlement agreement.
We suggest—I believe that Mr. John Eekelaar made this point—that that can do twofold damage to the negotiation process, which every practitioner values. It will hamper the negotiations because it will have restricted their scope. It will also follow that the settlement, although agreed between the parties, will be unstable from day one because at the behest of either party the agency can redefine and re-assess the child support element. To weaken the role of negotiation is contrary to the thrust of recent family law policy which seeks to encourage agreement.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question. Why not allow the court to continue to have the right to make a binding child support order at least where it forms part of a divorce settlement provided that the court is satisfied that the order is in the best interests of the child and is just in all the circumstances?
Many other issues will need to be explored in Committee upon which we are not clear. We shall wish to seek to extend the scope of Clause 7(6) to include special medical, housing and caring needs for the mentally or physically handicapped child which cannot be met within the formula.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon indicated, we have anxieties about the powers of the inspectorate. The powers may not be novel but the context in which the powers will be exercised is novel.
I shall not delay the House any longer. In conclusion, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will give the criticisms and suggestions which have emerged from the debate his usual careful consideration between now and Committee stage.
7.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the extent to which the principle behind the Bill has been supported by your Lordships. In saying that, I also understand certain anxieties which have been expressed. However, the principal and absolutely vital purpose underlying the Bill is to create a certain and effective method of assessment and collection of child maintenance. I believe strongly that that is very much in the interests of the child and therefore justifies the claim that the principle of the Bill is to put children first.
With his long experience of the inland revenue, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was apt to treat the issue as though it were a taxing arrangement. I do not consider a requirement that a father should pay for his child analogous to the arrangement under which the inland revenue obtains money from someone to maintain the organs of the state.

829
The purpose behind the Bill is to create a suitable frame work within which parents will be liable for maintenance for their children and children will be entitled to be maintained at a reasonable level having regard to the circumstances determined in accordance with a formula.
The child support agency involves a commitment of resources which have been described as bureaucratic. I do not know that the body in question would be less bureaucratic if it were part of the court bureaucracy, but it is an agency which will carry out executive tasks. It will ascertain the amount of maintenance in accordance with a formula—an executive task—and seek to enforce it, using if necessary the machinery of the court where enforcement is required.
The agency will have functions of an executive character which have not traditionally been carried out by the court. The court is there to decide questions between parties where there is a dispute which is properly the subject of judicial determination. However, the function of the agency is more of an executive character, resulting in a determination which in the ordinary case will not give rise to dispute.
Where there is a dispute, the proposal is that the dispute should first lead to reconsideration within the agency. I believe that that is an extremely simple way of trying to rectify an error by bringing out any further information that either party may have so that the matter can be reconsidered before embarking on any other form of appeal. Once the agency has reconsidered the matter, the Bill makes provision for appeal to a court or tribunal in accordance with arrangements which we may make. No doubt we shall wish to examine that matter in some detail in Committee.
As I made clear in the debate on the Children Act before the legislation was passed, and in other statements to your Lordships, I am committed to a review of the family justice system which takes account of the substantive law. The agency has a part to play in providing an effective means of collecting maintenance which does not exist in the present system. I have no doubt that noble Lords will have experience of people, notably mothers, who say, "I have an order from the court for maintenance. I cannot find the other party who is supposed to pay. What g pod is this piece of paper to me if I can't get the money?" That is one of the important problems which is addressed by the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale asked whether the agency could be married to a family court in the future. I do not preclude the possibility at some time in the future of wishing to alter the responsibility for the agency. However, for the foreseeable future it seems sensible to use the expertise of the Department of Social Security in such tasks as the agency will undertake and to free the courts in order that they may concentrate on the tasks for which they are particularly fitted and which they undertake.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, suggested that the Bill should make provision for a conciliation service. Conciliation is certainly under consideration, together with all the matters referred to
830
in the Law Commissioners' report on divorce which was published in November last year and which we debated in your Lordships' House not long ago. Since it is essential that all the recommendations are studied in depth, it would be premature to draw conclusions about the future role, organisation or funding of conciliation and related services until we are clear about what changes, if any, we need to make to divorce law and procedure. However, one of the objectives of the Bill is to create a formula which will determine maintenance and thus avoid the need for dispute. It is therefore not an appropriate place in which to consider setting up arrangements about conciliation.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her superb experience in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with his experience of a somewhat different character (I shall not say calibre) drew attention to the rigidity of the formula. In a sense a formula is supposed to tell one the answer when one feeds in the circumstances. One of the reasons for the complexity of the formula is the variety of circumstances with which it tries to deal. We must look at that in detail in Committee. Basically, one can have either a discretionary system which produces inconsistencies when used widely by different courts or agencies, or one can have a system of rules. The Bill attempts to set out a system of rules, which we call a formula, which will apply and give a variety of answers according to the circumstances.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon asked for an example. One is set out in the White Paper and we have distributed other papers illustrative of the policy which contain other examples. The White Paper gives an example of two children under the age of five living with their mother. Their father lives alone and earns £160 per week; that is less than the average income. He would pay £46 per week in maintenance; that is 29 per cent. of his net income. He would keep £114 per week for himself; that is 71 per cent. of his net income. The survey of how the present system works shows that the average payment is £16 per child. Of course, there is a tremendous variation and the average is not particularly meaningful. The payment of £46 in maintenance, which is still less than 30 per cent. of the father's net income, is therefore to be compared with an average payment of about £32 for two children under the current system.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords asked about the treatment of the family home. It is an important issue to which we shall no doubt return. It has concerned me during the course of the formulation of these proposals. The issue that one must keep in mind is that, in accordance with the formula, the absent parent will receive his full reasonable housing costs as part of his exempt income, as will the caring parent. If the absent parent transfers his share in the home to the caring parent his housing costs will rise because he must provide a home for himself. Those of the caring parent will often be reduced. The result will be that the absent parent will pay less maintenance. Given that balancing, or trading

831
off, within the operation of the formula, account will be taken of that particular problem in a reasonable way—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will not mind giving way in order that the House may be clear about what he is saying. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that, where a parent is absent from the home but retains his interest in the family home, some kind of allowance will be made against him on the basis that he still has an interest in the family home? If that is the case does it not upset the noble and learned Lord's reasoning?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was giving an example of the absent parent parting with his interest in the family home to the caring parent. The result will be that he will have housing costs greater than they would have been if he had kept the family home for himself. The formula will allow him to use those costs by way of deduction against the amount of maintenance that he must pay. In other words, if he incurs extra costs in housing himself as a result of having parted with the home in which he had a share to his ex-wife—that is the typical case—he will be entitled to use his housing costs, which will then be greater, as a deduction in the application of the formula—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is so kind that I know he will forgive me for rising a second time—there will not be a third. If the absent parent has retained an interest in the family home he will not be occupying that home because we are dealing with parents who live apart. Therefore, he will have an interest in the family home, will not be occupying it and must occupy another home for which he will receive precisely the same allowance as that to which the noble and learned Lord has referred.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord has sought to apply the example that I have given to a different situation. I am dealing with the situation in which the absent parent has parted with his interest in the family home to his ex-wife in order to provide a home for the children. In that situation the formula will give him the housing costs which he incurs on the basis that he has parted with his former home and must have a new home. The cost of that will be allowed by way of deduction.
That is not the same example as that just put forward by the noble Lord. His example involved the family home being made available to the wife while an interest in it is retained by the absent parent. That is different from the example that I have given. Even if he postpones realising his interest in the home he will still have the benefit of his own housing expenditure. Therefore, the way in which the formula operates will properly take account of that problem.
Various questions were asked about second families, notably by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. The question also featured in the more root and branch approach of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In future an absent parent will know of the extent of his liability to his first family and can be expected to
832
take that into account when deciding whether to go forward into the future with a second family. One of the important aspects of the formula is that people will be able in advance to determine their liabilities with reasonable precision. I regard that as important because at present the matter is entirely discretionary. One may receive good advice from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and his colleagues about what the award might be but not even they can forecast the court's decision with the kind of precision that a formula confers. One of the important effects of a formula will be to give precision to forecasting. Even if the husband decides to have a second family, or has already acquired one, his exempt income will take account of his liabilities to his own children in a second family. The protected earnings level, which is part of the formula, will ensure that a second family's income does not fall below the income support levels.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McGregor, asked whether the provisions would undermine the principle of the clean break. The Act which promoted the clean break dealt with the situation in which it is reasonable to expect both parties to become independent of one another. In cases where one party has the care of the children, and is therefore often restricted in the work that he or she can take on, it would not be right to apply that principle. In any event, while one has children who are under age there can be no question of a clean break between the parents and the children. That is the basis of the obligation of maintenance and there can be no clean break in that respect.
Perhaps this is a suitable point at which to deal with an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He pointed out that fathers have a right to access. Subject to particular circumstances, we might generally agree with that belief. However, I prefer to put the issue on the basis that the child has a right to contact with his father. The child's development depends on contact with the father and that should be encouraged. The sooner we get rid of the idea that because a father pays maintenance he should be entitled to access, even if that is bad for the child, or that if he falls behind with maintenance payments he should be penalised by having access refused, the better for all concerned. I believe that those who have experience of operating within the family jurisdiction know how terribly difficult are disputes where, quite wrongly, there is an attempt to set up a connection between maintenance on the one hand and access on the other. The seven voluntary societies which got together to issue a statement the other day make the point that there should be a careful distinction between maintenance and access. Therefore, in that sense, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is good. However, the matter is not one which is dealt with in this Bill. Controls already exist in the Children Act in relation to access or, as we prefer to call it, contact. With great respect to the noble Lord, I believe that it would be a mistake to attempt to link those two matters in this Bill.
I believe that I have mentioned many of the basic points raised in connection with the system proposed

833
in the Bill. I turn now to a matter brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and other noble Lords. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall be able to make regulations allowing a reduction in certain cases where the caring parent refuses to give relevant information to determine maintenance obligations and in particular the name of the father.
Generally speaking, that does not arise. The absent parent will often be known and is named. That must be the proper situation. It must be right that, where the state is making a substantial contribution for children and the father is able to pay, the state should have the necessary power to enforce that obligation and for the woman to give that information.
In the course of my opening remarks I gave examples of some circumstances in which it may not be right to require the caring parent to give such information. I believe that I gave two examples. The Bill accepts the principle that, where it is not right to demand that information from the caring parent, it will not be demanded. There will be no question of penalising a woman who properly refuses to give that information.
The next suggestion is that the precise circumstances for proper refusal should be spelt out in the Bill. That is an extremely difficult task. Your Lordships may wish to embark on that in Committee but unless it is possible to state every circumstance in which a woman may properly refuse to give the information as stated, then in the future a great disservice may be done to a woman who may be in just that circumstance which has been omitted.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend to tell me who decides on the propriety of the refusal.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the child support officer will decide in the light of the criteria but the regulations will specify the criteria. At present, we are dealing with the criteria.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if it is possible to state the criteria in regulations, why cannot the criteria be stated in primary legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if a ground is omitted in a regulation, it will be very easy to change that. However, if it is omitted in primary legislation we must wait for the next legislative opportunity, which may cause consequent hardship to the person or persons who find themselves in the circumstances which have been omitted. Personally I should be quite happy to attempt to state the criteria if that could be done. However, so far, I am persuaded that, subject to hearing your Lordships' eloquence in due course, this is a fundamental difficulty and that it would be better to maintain on this matter the sort of flexibility which I have described. Your Lordships will no doubt bear in mind also that the better known the criteria the more one may have to deal with a situation in which people seek to adjust their affairs in order to meet the criteria.
The other matter of principle with which I shall deal briefly is whether there is any carrot which could be
834
produced instead of the stick in relation to this subject. The fact that most people give the necessary information suggests that there is no need for any general additional incentive. The incentive would be very general because in most cases the information is supplied. In the circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that it is better to deal with the exceptional cases by a special provision of this kind rather than to give a general reward to everyone.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has a skill which I do not possess. He says that he is able to read writing in invisible ink upon the pages of this Bill. According to him in that invisible ink is written the word "harassment" or "harasses". I repudiate entirely any suggestion that the authentic copies of the Bill have any such inscriptions on them. However, there must be an effective system. One of your Lordships—and I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with his experience of the family jurisdiction—recognised that there may be devious rascals who will try to evade their obligations. That demonstrates to your Lordships that there must be an effective system. If it is effective, then people realise that they cannot evade their obligations by deviousness. Therefore, the system will work. However, if the necessary powers do not exist then people will all too often try to evade their obligations. If the system is not effective then the children will lose out when it is the children whom we intend shall benefit.
The powers of the inspectors are precedented in the social security legislation. For my part I believe that it is just as important and necessary for those powers to be available in the context of maintenance for children as it is in relation to the social security responsibilities of the state. In very restricted circumstances, as an ultimate sanction, prison is the last resort. That carries on the present law as regards obligation to maintain.
I am sure that there are many matters which your Lordships will wish to raise. I hope that I have dealt with the principal questions put to me by your Lordships. Whether or not I have, I have certainly exhausted the time available to me.
Lastly, perhaps I should mention the confidentiality of revenue information. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mentioned that. The right which the Secretary of State has to such information under this Bill is very restricted. It is available only in order to trace the address or employer of the person involved.
In my submission to your Lordships, the powers contained in this Bill, which have been described as draconian, are no more than are necessary in order to give the agency an effective method of carrying out the task assigned to it. If we are setting up an agency of this kind, surely we want it to be effective.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Representation of the People Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Hospital Beds for the Mentally Ill
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that health authorities are ensuring that any reduction in the number of hospital beds available for the mentally ill does not outpace the development of alternative community services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking my noble friend Lady Hooper for writing and explaining to me why she was unable to answer my Question on behalf of the Government. I should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness and trust that he will not find his brief to be too much of a strait-jacket. Recently, when I visited the mental wing of our new hospital in the Isle of Wight, I said to the senior psychiatric nurse that I imagined there would be some locked wards and some strait-jackets somewhere. He was shocked. He said, "We try to avoid those at all costs". I hope that my noble friend will avoid his brief at all costs if he finds that it is too much of a strait-jacket.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that I am advised on matters relating to the mentally ill by two charities; by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and also by SANE. Your Lordships will have noted that my noble kinsman Lord Balfour of Inchrye has taken advantage of the debate to make his maiden speech. Due to the nature of debates on Unstarred Questions I shall not be able publicly to congratulate my noble kinsman on his speech. However, I take this opportunity to wish him every success in making it. Perhaps I may take the opportunity also to thank other noble Lords for taking part in the debate.
Over many years I and several other noble Lords have been repeatedly questioning the Government's policy of proceeding too fast with shutting down beds in mental hospitals and, indeed, in shutting down hospitals themselves before providing alternative services for the mentally ill patients whose numbers are probably increasing. I say "probably" because it is becoming obvious that many people—such as several convicted criminals and destitute people on the streets—who were hitherto treated as being wholly responsible for their actions, are in fact mentally incapable of coping with life. For example, in one of the large prisons on the Isle of Wight the senior probation officer informed me that around 25 per cent. of the prisoners, who are mainly in their early 20s, are pathetically inadequate and unable to look after themselves.
Those people need to be added to the number already recognised as needing care either in hospital or in the community. Therefore, there is evidence of a real need for communities in this country to appreciate that there are large numbers of mentally ill or inadequate people who require help. We used to
836
call it "asylum"; it is sad that that word has a bad name. At the same time the 150,000 hospital beds that existed in 1956 have shrunk to 37,350 today. That reduction has continued steadily over 30 years, initially for very good reasons but latterly mainly at the personal expense of a tolerable life for dedicated family carers.
That is now clearly appreciated by the Government. They somewhat belatedly told us that health authorities have received guidance making it absolutely clear that the run-down of mental hospitals should not proceed faster than the build-up of care services. Most recently that point was made by my noble friend Lady Hooper at Question Time on 29th January when she said:
"My Lords, the run-down and closure of hospitals should not proceed faster than the build-up of alternative local services. Our guidance to health authorities makes that absolutely clear".—[Official Report, 29/1/91; col. 542.]
I could go on but I believe that that sufficiently makes the point.
The Government also enacted the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which makes all the provision for assessment of mentally ill patients before discharge and care thereafter for which one could possibly wish. It is the implementation of those good intentions about which I ask. They seem to me to be sadly lacking.
At a recent meeting with the Minister of State for Health, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley—for which I was indeed grateful —I received the firm impression of three possible reasons for the lack of implementation of the Government's care policy. First, there is no machinery in the Department of Health for checking whether care facilities are actually being put in place to match the shut-down of hospitals. Secondly, health authorities only have to notify in advance plans to shut down hospitals, as stated by my noble friend Lady Hooper on 29th January to which I have already referred. Apparently health authorities can shut down beds without formally saying whether or not there are matching care facilities. Thirdly, if the Department of Health hears about the proposed shutting down of beds and warns the health authority against doing so, it never receives the publicity it deserves because it might embarrass those concerned.
An example which demonstrates the lack of enthusiasm by the department for having the information necessary to ensure that the Government's policy of closure and matching care facilities is followed, is illustrated by a Question in another place on 12th February by Mr. David Atkinson MP. The Question asked about the 32 mental illness hospitals planned for closure by 1996. It also asked how many beds and patients were now in them. Mr. Atkinson was told the hospitals' names but informed that the other information was not held centrally. When a similar Question was asked last year the numbers of patients in 35 mental hospitals planned for closure by 1995 was provided. If the information in regard to beds was available in 1990, why was it not available centrally in 1991? That just is not good enough. Furthermore, it does not enhance the Government's reputation for taking care in the community seriously. One would have thought that

837
the Government would be only too keen to insist on the necessary information being held at their fingertips to enable them to answer the kind of questions we are discussing, and so that they can restrain the regional and district health authorities from shutting down beds faster than the facilities in the community are provided to care for the patients.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Cavendish will be able to tell us that he and his ministerial colleagues will insist on receiving full information with regard to planned care in the community, and the planned matching of closure of beds currently in mental hospitals with that care.
8 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I rise, first, to ask for your Lordship's indulgence while I address the House for the first time and, secondly, to thank noble Lords for all the courtesy and kindness which I have received since entering the House last year. As a layman, I admit to considerable temerity in speaking from these Benches, which are often awash with noble Lords imbued with erudition, expertise and experience in the field of medicine.
My reason for participating in this debate is that, through circumstances, I have witnessed the lives of others racked, if not wrecked, by mental illness. I feel the need urgently to improve the quality of life of all those who suffer from psychological and emotional illness. I am fortunate in that I have never suffered from mental illness. However, when I have been asked what my profession is or how I spend my time and I reply truthfully that, first and foremost, I write music, I have noticed a strange look appearing on the questioner's face which suggests that possibly there is a stronger connection with Broadmoor than Broadwood. Many creative individuals have suffered from mental illness. But it is not primarily on their behalf that I am addressing your Lordships this evening, rather on behalf of the thousands of sufferers who are ordinary people endeavouring to lead normal lives yet burdened by the anguish of mental pain.
Last year some of your Lordships may have watched a television programme about just such a person. The victim was suffering from severe depression. I well remember the agonised expression on her face—a look that I have seen on numerous visits to National Health Service hospital wards and private nursing homes. It is a sort of hellish maelstrom raging in the head. But what to me was so satisfying about the programme was not merely its depiction of the victim's recovery but the fact that it was screened at all. I believe that for far too long the subject of mental illness has been swept under the carpet or, if talked about at all, in hushed, reverential tones. It is a taboo topic. That may be a legacy of our Victorian past but even today ignorance of and prejudice and intolerance towards the mentally disordered exist within our society.
Apropos ignorance, I remember a few years ago when studying the county cricket scores—I often turn to the scores as an antidote to our front page news—and reading of how a county had omitted a young player because he was suffering from depression. That
838
was an enlightened and laudable action. But what was the reaction of the cricket correspondent of a leading national daily newspaper? He said, "Oh well, we all get depressed". To me that was a somewhat fatuous and thoughtless response, though in the correspondent's defence it is only fair to say that he was only revealing the inadequacy of a term that spans everything from feelings of sadness to desperate illness.
What of prejudice? Let us contrast the attitude displayed towards patients suffering from physical as distinct from mental illnesses. While the former will receive cards, flowers and gifts from well-wishers, the latter receive precisely nothing. For the mentally ill the flowers are conspicuous by their absence. Fortunately, there are signs that the public is beginning to show some understanding of both the nature and extent of mental illness. A recent MORI poll, conducted on behalf of the Mental Health Foundation, shows that only one in 10 people still consider mental illness to be due to weakness of character. That is half the number of those who believed that to be the case when the poll was conducted in 1979. That is encouraging because it means that the "Come on, pull yourself together" brigade are on the retreat.
I should like to see a programme of health education to teach everyone about the character and consequences of mental ill health. In the eyes of the general public, while mental illness may have lost some of its stigma, by and large it remains an enigma. I shall give your Lordships some statistics concerning mental illness. The Mental Health Foundation estimates that no fewer than 6 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from mental illness in the course of a year. That represents one in 10 of the population, which is more than the total population of Scotland. I should point out that Ministers at the Department of Health differ in their interpretation of what constitutes mental illness from that advanced by the Mental Health Foundation. They consider the figure to be lower. However, I have it on good authority that the figure of 6 million sufferers is based on the number of people identified by general practitioners as suffering from a mental illness according to the international classification of diseases.
The great majority of those affected (4.5 million) are in the 15 to 64 age range—that is to say, the working population. A further 1.2 million are over 65, while, sadly, 300,000 children under the age of 15 are similarly afflicted. Mental illness is as common as heart disorder, three times as common as cancer, five times more common than mental handicap and 3,000 times more common than AIDS. Mental illness is not regarded as a killer in the same way as heart disease and cancer yet, in addition to the massive extent of suffering caused, it results in the deaths of a substantial number of people—up to 20,000 individuals each year. That figure comprises 4,500 suicides, which is 13 a day, 1,800 fatalities due to alcohol and drug abuse and 13,500 deaths from causes directly attributable to chronic mental disorder within the elderly population.

839
To put these figures into perspective, mental illness kills over four times as many people as perish annually in road accidents. That is not all. The cost to the nation of mental ill health is truly staggering. In 1989, of the 417 million working days lost due to sickness absence in the United Kingdom, 71 million (17 per cent.) were due to mental illness. By comparison, strikes accounted for 4 million days. Over the 10-year period from 1979 to 1989 working days lost through mental ill health increased from 33 million to 71 million.
Finally, the price we pay for mental illness is truly alarming. It was £6,825 million in 1989. If I were to be granted sufficient miraculous powers, there are three changes to our current mode of living which I should like to see made during the 21st century: first, a substantial decline in the world population; secondly, a reduction in the speed of many aspects of life; and, thirdly, a diminution of the noise that assails us everywhere. No doubt I shall be branded as naive, told that I am burying my head in the sand and putting the clock back and so on. To all those charges I plead guilty.
Of one thing I am sure. Unless we give some thought to the suggestions that I have made whereby we can somehow reduce the strain and stress of our daily lives, we shall continue to create the conditions in which mental illness thrives. Two years ago the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health remarked:
"Mental illness is the single largest necessity for expenditure within the National Health Service".
Although that is undoubtedly true, I consider that we need to be certain that sufficient resources are also being made available to care for those who are being returned to the community as a consequence of the continuing closure of our mental hospitals. It is surely not enough to care for 60,000 individuals who are resident in our psychiatric hospitals at a cost of £72 per day, when 5.9 million mental illness sufferers living in the community are offered 29p. a day—the price of a cup of tea.
I have personal knowledge of the closure of the external psychiatric unit of a London teaching hospital early in the last decade. Its closure and the subsequent inadequate provision for continuous care caused dismay to the practitioners and staff and distress to the patients and their families. I feel that, given the priority currently assigned to community care for the mentally ill, such uncertainty suggests that arrangements for on-going care may still leave something to be desired. I am therefore extremely glad that my noble kinsman, whom I thank for his earlier very kind words, has initiated the debate on this important issue in your Lordships' House this evening. I thank your Lordships for hearing me.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it comes to me as a great honour to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on his maiden speech. I have heard many maiden speeches in my long life in your Lordships' House. I have never heard one so accurate,
840
so carefully thought out and so brilliantly produced. I congratulate the noble Lord very much indeed. He has done a wonderful job for those of us who are deeply concerned about the mental health situation. I hope that everyone will have the opportunity to read what he said. I am sure that it will be influential on the Government. I should like to say how grateful we are to you, sir, and I congratulate you on an admirable speech.
I am very glad indeed to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He and I have had associations with various of the mental health organisations. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship is the one with which I have had most to do since helping to start it not so very many years ago. I think that all such organisations have made people aware of these terrific problems which, as someone said just now, are apt to be swept under the carpet. They are vitally important to everybody in this country, whether one is a sufferer or simply an ordinary person. I am sorry that the debate has started at such a late hour. I am sorry also that it is taking place after a very long debate and that we do not have the support we might have had. Nevertheless, let us say the things we want to say and let us hope that the Government will pay some attention and that we shall get something done.
I am very much concerned about the reduction in the number of hospital beds. Have the Government provided enough care in the community for the mentally ill? I very much doubt it because it is a difficult thing to do. I was on my local county council for a great many years and I served on the committee with responsibility for the local health authority. I remember very well how difficult it was to get people to understand how to care for those mental patients who were not in hospital but were able to live in the community provided they had someone to look after them, someone to advise them and someone to care for them. Do we have enough care for those people who are being and will be put out of mental hospitals?
On 12th February the Government were asked about the planned closure of 32 mental hospitals—my noble friend Lord Mottistone said 35; he may be right, I do not know. No answer was given that care in the community would be available. I believe that 25,650 beds in hospitals for mental patients are being done away with. That is an enormous number. Is it possible to provide community care for all those people? Such provision involves local health authorities, as I know from my experience. It is not easy to provide trained social workers to cope with these numbers. Without trained social workers one cannot cope. It is vital that that should be one of the priorities.
I received information from the City of Westminster that 25 per cent. of those who are discharged from hospital are homeless. This is a hopeless way—I was going to say a wicked way—of dealing with the matter. Those who are turned out of hospital with no care find themselves in despair and often become involved in petty crime, which can result in imprisonment. Whatever the result, it is the wrong way to treat mental illness, especially schizophrenia.

841
Those of us who in one way or another are concerned about mental health care are deeply worried by this turn of events. We press the Government very strongly not to allow any mental patient to be without care in the community. In other words, we must relate hospital care and community care to the enormous numbers which have been cited in this debate and which are well known. I beg the Government to take this matter extremely seriously and do something about it now.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to three excellent speeches, all by people who have in different ways done a great deal for the cause of the mentally ill. Two were made by established Members of the House and the third by a newcomer—not a chicken, if I may put it that way, but new to this House. There must be some magic in the Bench on which the noble Lord is sitting. His neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Acton, made a brilliant maiden speech last week and now the noble Lord has done so today. I sat there once in 1961. I do not know if it worked for me: others will have to judge. The debate was on Christian unity. There were two very bigoted Members of the House on the Front Bench—one was Lord Alexander, who was against it, and I was favourable to it. It was thought by our colleagues that we had better adjourn so we both spoke interminably from there. That was my only experience of speaking from that Bench.
I was looking up the record of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour. It would take a long time to do justice to it. It mentions composing, writing, drinking—there is a reference to drinking which I do not take seriously —and dreaming too. There is one concrete statement here that the noble Lord wrote a book on famous diamonds. Unless he is careful he will turn into a famous diamond himself. At any rate, we are very pleased to have heard him speak.
I am absolutely in line with the sentiments expressed in the debate. I only hope that if we keep pegging away eventually we shall achieve something or at any rate obtain some information. It may not be very easy to obtain it even from a Government full of good will or at any rate from a Minister full of good will. When I last spoke on these matters I suggested that community care was a disastrous term. It was full of ambiguities. It is a great pity that it was ever invented. However we are stuck with it and I shall not spend time splitting hairs about it tonight.
Most of us, whether we are talking of schizophrenia or any other form of mental trouble, will have some experience of the gallant and dedicated efforts made to help in the community in the widest sense people who have been in mental hospitals. I venture to recommend noble Lords to visit the hostel attached to the Maudsley Hospital. It is described on the document which I have been studying as 111 Denmark Hill, Rehabilitation Hospital, Hostel Ward. Last Friday I found there 14 men and women, long-stay patients. It is to be hoped that some of them will leave eventually, but there is no emphasis on that. Some of them may stay there indefinitely. The whole emphasis
842
is on the hostel being a home. The ratio is quite good. I do not know whether it is better or worse than is found in mental hospitals. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will tell us. For 14 patients there are, roughly speaking, 14 people there to help them. It is a ratio of one to one. Undoubtedly the people there enjoy themselves very much. I greatly commend the hostel.
I do not know how much one can deduce from that. Only 14 people stay there and we know that vast numbers of mentally ill people need some sort of care in the community. So for a start one would need to increase the number of such places. That is one way of making a start. The beauty of this place, if I may say so, following something I said in a previous debate on these matters, is that it links the hospital and the community. It springs from the hospital and yet these people are free to move about. They are voluntary patients and they play their part—not a very large part —in the community. That is one way of dealing with the matter. The more often that example is followed, the better it will be for everyone.
Of course there are many different forms of mental trouble or mental situations; indeed, the varieties are unlimited. Therefore, enormous imagination, organising power and energy must be brought to bear in order to work out a national scheme. I do not for one moment think that any collective thought is being used to solve the problem. If that is not the case, I should like to hear examples to the contrary. However, during the course of many debates in this House, I have seen no sign of collective thinking on the matter.
The example of the Maudsley hostel raises a relatively easy issue. It is one of the most famous hospitals in the world and there is no question of its closure. However, if one considers an area where the hospital has been shut down, the whole problem becomes much worse. I have mentioned before —and I do not apologise for repeating it—the situation which will follow the total shutting down of Hellingley Hospital in Sussex. At one time it held 1,400 people, although it was originally intended for 1,000. At present there are 100 people in the hospital, but soon there will be none because the place is being closed. It is not the same as the Maudsley Hospital, because the latter provides a nucleus for aftercare. But, in the case of Hellingley, there will be no provision whatever when the place is closed. One is bound to ask what will happen in such a situation, or indeed in any other, where the hospital is being closed.
As regards Hellingley, I tried to look into the matter. Bearing in mind that there would be 1,000 people in that hospital if it were not due to close, I managed to trace 200 people in one district or another who would normally rely upon the hospital. Therefore, it is a matter of 200 people being placed in smaller units, against 1,000 former places —although, to be fair, there are plans to provide a further 200 places in smaller units. However, that will amount to only 400 places. The majority of the people who were in the hospital will not be catered for in those smaller units.

843
I gained a very favourable impression of one of the smaller units which I visited. In such units, which provide for about 40 people, it is possible to lead a much more constructive life than in a large hospital. I am not for one moment saying that the ideal is to keep these larger institutions open. I think we all agree that we must produce alternative accommodation for these people, whether it is in smaller units or some other form of aftercare.
I have given the Government notice of a few questions that I wish to ask. I hope that they will be able to provide answers. First, do we have any idea of the amount of alternative accommodation which is provided? In the one area I mentioned, I talked about 200 or possibly 400 places against 1,000 possible places in the hospital. It may be said that some sort of community care will be provided for the other people either at day centres or in their homes and so on. Taking a national view, can the Government give us any idea of the scale of the provision at present? Can they tell us, even in the roughest terms, the amount of community care which is being provided in place of the care received in the hospitals which are to be closed? If it is not possible to measure the number of people who are helped in the community in that way, can we perhaps look at the matter in financial terms? For example, how much money has been saved in the past 10 years, or during any other period which appeals to the noble Lord, by closing mental hospitals and how much public money is being spent on community care? That question will not go away. The Minister may or may not have an answer at his fingertips. In any event, we shall keep returning to it.
There is one other aspect of the matter which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in his excellent opening speech. He quoted a statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on January 29th. In fact, I believe that she replied to me in the same way during a subsequent debate in February. She said that the Government would not allow the closure of mental hospitals in the future. I am not sure whether what she said to the noble Lord was as definite as what she said to me:
"No hospital closures will be approved unless it can be demonstrated that adequate alternatives have been developed".—[Official Report, 13/2/91; col. 184.]
I have a further question for the noble Lord, who I am sure will handle the matter with much sympathy. I have given him notice of it. Can he say when this new policy—a healthy one, at least on the face of it—was introduced? It was certainly not introduced until fairly recently. Further, how will the policy be enforced? We must be told whether there is an effective way of implementing it. It is taking rather a negative view to say that there will be no closures until adequate alternative accommodation is available. What steps are the government taking—this is the nub of the matter—to ensure that adequate accommodation is provided? It is not enough to say, "Well, if there is no accommodation we shall not allow any closures". The Government have a plan—a vision, if you like—of alternative accommodation, but what steps are they taking to promote its availability?
844
Every time I reconsider this matter I find something new and horrible about it. I shall not mention a particular case tonight because it may not help the individual concerned. I have not given the noble Lord notice of my next point, but I cannot help wondering whether the position today in England of a long-stay patient is that he cannot make use of the National Health Service without being subject to a means test. Is that the situation in this country? It is true that that is the case in some places. Finally, I should like to express my support for all that has been said thus far in the debate.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Mottistone for raising this extremely important question. It is one which reflects widespread concern that well-meaning policies of discharging patients suffering from mental illness into the community do not turn into a nightmarish reality of loneliness, neglect and physical and mental deterioration.
My noble friend has comprehensively highlighted key facts and figures indicating the extent of reductions in the number of hospital beds. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in his moving maiden speech highlighted very powerfully the size and poignancy of the problems of mental illness. I shall, therefore, just mention three issues. The first concerns problems associated with the general policy of community care; secondly, I shall give one specific example which illustrates, tragically, the nature of these problems; and, finally, I shall put forward a related issue of the training of social workers who will be the key professional staff implementing social care as responsibility moves to local authorities and social service departments. That point was touched upon by my noble friend Lady Elliot.
Several years ago, when I was lecturing in the social sciences, the concept of community care began to feature prominently on the agenda of policies for people suffering from mental illness and mental handicap. I was then deeply ambivalent about the concept, and I still am. The problems of long-stay institutional care have been well documented. Those of us who have worked in institutions are familiar with them. I refer to problems of depersonalisation, dependency, loss of initiative and so on. By contrast, community care at its best can provide a quality of life better than that which may be possible in traditional large institutions. Indeed, some examples of good community care have transformed the lives of people who have been hospitalised for many years, thus giving them new-found and previously almost inconceivable freedom, dignity and independence. We should be very thankful for that fact.
But, tragically, discharge from hospital does not always have such a happy outcome. In the first place, hospitals can be very effective asylums, in the best sense of the word, to people suffering from mental illness. Indeed, they can be happy places. Moreover, on the other side of the coin, provision in the community is already proving to be inadequate to meet the needs of some people suffering from mental

845
illness. So far, those who have been discharged have been those deemed to be most ready to adjust to life in the community. Subsequent discharges are likely to be less obvious candidates for adjustment from the asylum of hospital care to the challenges of life in the community, for the community can be a lonely place, and it is much easier for people suffering from a mental illness to slip through the interstices of care in the community than it is in the relative safety of a hospital. Moreover, community care cannot, and must not, be a cheaper option than institutional care. Although many relatives are willing to take on responsibilities for the care of people with a mental illness, it may place a great strain upon them, and they need adequate support. There is again evidence that many are not receiving that support and are under great stress.
That brings me to my second point. I offer one vignette which I am afraid is typical of many and it is a true story. Following bed closures in a large hospital, a middle-aged man suffering from schizophrenia was discharged into the community. Accommodation was found for him in a bed-sit flat, but he was told that he had to leave it. He became agitated. He went to a day hospital where he broke a window and set off the fire alarm. He was arrested and sent to prison on remand for three months. The manager in charge of mental health for that locality said that there had been several unsuccessful attempts to provide more satisfactory placements but that there were gaps in the current service provision for patients who exhibit what he called "challenging behaviour", and that the absence of "challenging behaviour facilities" led to great pressures on the carers of people with such problems. He also said that he had not approached other mental health facilities in his region because they would have been in no better position to assist with the containment of problems presented by that client. The man vas eventually accommodated in a private hospital at a considerable distance from his elderly mother who has great difficulty travelling to visit him.
That sad case illustrates a pattern that is becoming disturbingly widespread: a pattern of clients who have been discharged from mental hospitals and who have encountered difficulties of accommodation, isolation and anxiety which have perhaps prompted them to indulge in behaviour which lands them in trouble, or which relegates them to the ranks of the homeless and the destitute. It is no accident that one-third of the homeless in our country suffer from some form of mental illness. Demographic trends are likely to exacerbate the problem as more of our elderly population become more elderly and more prone to associated psychiatric problems such as dementia. There are already too many cases where appropriate institutional care cannot be found and where carers are suffering intolerable stress.
Before I finish I wish to touch on a different but related topic; namely, the shift of responsibility for the provision of social care to local authorities and social service departments, where the lead professionals will be the social workers. My anxiety is whether they have all beam adequately trained to assess the needs of
846
people suffering from mental illness. That anxiety is based on my perception of trends in the theoretical basis for some social work courses which have a strong bias against the so-called "medical model" of diagnosis and treatment.
Perhaps I may refer briefly once again to the days when I was lecturing in social sciences. I remember being deeply worried by courses leading to degrees and professional qualifications in social work which gave virtually no knowledge of the clinical basis of mental illness and which taught that medical treatment was a form of "oppression". In its most extreme form, such radical social work was represented by a movement called Case Con, with a journal of the same name. In one issue, typical Marxist approaches to mental illness were identified: one saw mental illness as "false consciousness" with the remedy lying in the acceptance of a Marxist analysis. Another taught that mental illness is merely a product of bourgeois propaganda in a society where people who threaten the bourgeois order are coerced into institutions and where psychiatry serves as a tool of the oppressors. I am not paranoid and I am not hallucinating.
I have sat in on lectures where those theories were being taught in all seriousness. Worse than that, I am aware of situations where social workers would not identify clients with psychiatric problems as mentally ill because of a commitment to such ideological approaches to mental illness. I have read courses leading to qualifications in social work which do not study mental illness at all and do not give those social workers any knowledge of the key insights and facts relating to mental illness, but focus merely on critiques of the medical model. I must emphasis that those direct experiences are not recent, but they were real; and many who undertook those courses may now be in practice.
I talked to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and I am sad to learn that it, with its direct experience of people suffering mental illness, is even now deeply worried about the lack of clinical knowledge of many social workers and the ideological bias of some who still see medical treatment as a form of oppression. I talked recently to a professor of social work and I was interested to note that he was worried that in his experience too many social workers seemed to forget that their clients had bodies with physical needs.
Those worries were endorsed by a report from the CCETSW last year which recounted findings of a national survey of approved social workers qualified to work with the mentally ill in which it was recognised that the most strongly felt deficits of knowledge were those relating to mental illness and matters directly relevant to the mentally ill which are, they admit, almost certainly under-taught in basic approved social work training. So serious are those deficiencies that the NSF has recently run 14-day training courses in different parts of the country—and is still running them —to help social workers become more knowledgeable about the condition of schizophrenia and the needs of those who suffer from it and those who care for them. It seems a little anomalous that it should fall to a charitable organisation to make

847
up a deficit in professional training for professional social workers who are to be the lead professionals in providing community care.
I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister for reassurance that not only will there be adequate provision for people discharged from hospital in terms of essential facilities and support services, but for reassurance that the staff who will be responsible for designing and implementing the so-called packages of care will be adequately qualified in terms of clinical knowledge to ensure that patients' mental health needs are met. Unless those basic provisions can be assured, we may see suffering of unprecedented proportions in the form of lost, lonely and homeless people, or of carers who are burdened beyond endurance. Such outcomes would not only be a travesty of a policy which was designed to bring a better quality of life to some of our most vulnerable citizens; it would also be an unforgivable blight upon the conscience of the nation.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for raising this subject for debate because it is one of the most important subjects affecting our society. I also take the opportunity to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on joining our debate. We look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, mentioned various figures relating to hospitals which are likely to close within the foreseeable future and how many bed closures there would be affecting the mentally ill. There were different figures: 32 hospitals, 35 hospitals—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene in order to clarify this point for the noble Baroness and for my noble friend. It is 32 hospitals this year and it was 35 hospitals last year. They were different quotes.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; but I have also been given a figure to say that this means there will be a loss of something like 12,500 beds.
I was delighted, as I am sure were many of your Lordships, when in September the Government announced a specific grant of £30 million for mental health care to local authorities to improve their capabilities in providing care for the mentally ill. It is estimated that will provide care for about 3,000 people. At the moment local authorities spend £200 million on mental health care, and so the £30 million is an increase of 15 per cent. As I said, it will provide care for about 3,000 people. However, the Government admit that there are 25,000 people suffering from schizophrenia. Therefore the finance available to local authorities is not by any means adequate. The £30 million is only available to local authorities if they can put up 30 per cent. Many local authorities have already announced that with the community charge and the capping in regard to the
848
community charge, they are unable to find the 30 per cent. As a result, they cannot take advantage of the £30 million.
There is another interesting figure. Over the past 10 years the ratio of expenditure between hospital care and community care has hardly changed. For every pound spent on mental health 10 years ago, 12p was spent on community services. That amount has now risen to the enormous sum of 15p, and in my view the ratio should be completely reversed.
Not so very long ago I was chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority. The pressure for allowing people back into the community had already started, and therefore the transfer of resources from the big institutions to community care had begun. I argued with the Secretary of State, including the former Secretary of State who is now sitting on the Labour Front Bench, about the impossibility of transferring any resources from the hospital service to the community without getting bridging loans from the Government.
You cannot save money by closing part of a hospital, or closing some wards, and allowing the people with the greatest possibilities to live on their own out in the community. You are then left with patients who need the most enormous amount of care. You probably need more staff because in the past some of the fitter patients did quite a lot within the hospital to help their friends who were not as well off as they were. Therefore certainly the same staff, if not more, are needed; and you cannot let the rest of the hospital buildings fall down. The bridging loans were desperately necessary, and without them resources to the community cannot be transferred.
Last year the Government announced capital bridging loan finance for health authorities to the tune of £50 million. That was for mental health and handicap services. That was also very welcome. However, immediately that was announced, 140 health authorities applied for the bridging loan finance, and 10 of them were granted it. That amounted to £30 million. Therefore £50 million is by no means enough. The Social Services Select Committee in another place have estimated that the bridging loan fund, it it is to be of any help, should be £267.6 million.
It is a tragedy that we cannot organise our finances to help this transfer. We are all convinced that with the proper services in the community it is better for people to live like normal human beings. It is also true that for a very few of them the institution is home, and they should not be pushed out if they are not ready to leave.
We have failed abysmally in creating the right community services. This is pointed to by the fact that 80 per cent. of admissions to psychiatric hospitals are people who have been admitted before. It is not wholly the fault of lack of community services; but I cannot help feeling that that is one of the most important reasons. I am connected with a charity called Crisis, and I am one of their trustees. In particular in London we have found an enormous increase in the number of people suffering from mental disability. This creates great problems in hostels and day centres because these mentally afflicted homeless people create

849
enormous disturbance in the hostels and day centres because the people are not being properly cared for by the rig ht kind of services. To a certain extent, that puts off homeless people who want to use the day centres because it is too difficult to cope.
We had one or two terrible examples in Crisis at Christmas. For example, a woman became too violent and could not be kept at the centre. We took her to the Maudsley Hospital. She was examined and considered not to be insane. We then took her to a night shelter, where she apparently became just as violent. The police were called in, but they did not take her to the police station. They asked her where she wanted to go and she said, "King's Cross". They took her there and just dropped her on the corner. That should not happen to anybody in that state. It was only about three weeks later that she died.
All community workers must have very special training in order to look after the homeless mentally ill. These people are in a very special class. They have no connections with society; they are not registered with a GP, and they do not have any people of their own supporting them in the community. Quite often they have had bad experiences in a hospital or they do not like the hospital. They are also very unlikely to keep out-patient appointments or to take medication. This is an enormous problem and it must be addressed.
I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talk about the training which is necessary for social workers. I could not agree more. I do riot know how many members of the medical profession we have in the Chamber at the moment, but I emphasise that the same point applies to general practitioners. There are many general practitioners who do not understand how to deal with the first signs of mental illness. They are not prepared to take the time to probe why a patient has come to see them, complaining of some minor illness, when in fact they want the doctor to take time with them, and they want to be able to talk to someone about their problems.
We need to concentrate, both in our medical education and in our post-graduate training, particularly for general practitioners, on learning more about how to detect what is really behind a person's plea for help. That should also be included in social workers' training.
Many things need to be done, and there is much goodwill among the voluntary organisations and among people in society, but unless we get our finances right we shall not be able to solve the problem.
8.50 p m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House feels grateful that we have had a wealth of well-informed speeches this evening from people who know what they are talking about and who have taken trouble with their presentation, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in his maiden speech. He has started very well. I hope that he keeps it up.
850
There is a great need for people who have an understanding of mental health problems in Britain to speak up, stand up, and in a sense fight against ignorance and prejudice, but perhaps more against the sense of apathy, that this is someone else's problem.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his raising of the issue today, and also for his constant concern about this issue. I share his worries about the gross disparity between the rate of closure of long-stay mental hospital beds and the inadequacy of community care. I touched on this in the debate which we had on 13th February when I referred to mental hospital beds having been cut by 40 per cent. in a period of just two years, which was too much. Then I said:
"thousands of long-stay mental patients have been discharged from long-stay hospitals, landing up in prisons or sleeping rough, because the Government will not provide money for good community care;"—[Official Report, 13/2/91; col. 120.]
The Government accept that some mental hospital beds will be required even when the closure programme is completed. When the Minister replies, I wonder whether he could say something about that. What is their present calculation? What are the criteria on which any calculation is made? I hope the Minister will also reply to the valid points put by my noble friend Lord Longford.
I also share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that figures of beds closed and beds still required are not held centrally. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. Unless the information is available to the department from the regions, through the districts, there is no way in which the department can effectively monitor a programme on which Ministers can come to this House and another place to answer questions. I am always dissatisfied to hear the answer "This information is not centrally available". On this issue the information must be centrally available; otherwise we cannot follow what is going on. In a sense, it is an abdication of responsibility for the carrying into effect of policies which concern us all.
Principally, I want to say that it is more important to put more resources into good community care than to turn back the clock. I agree with the noble Lord that we must keep the closure of mental hospitals in sync, but I do not want us to turn back the clock. My noble friend referred to "community care" as being words he did not like. I find it to be a satisfactory concept. Providing it is effectively carried through, providing the range of options is very wide, and that there is proper supervision and training for those involved, it is a far better provision than that found in hospital, except for a limited few.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was right to point out that 99 per cent. of all people with a diagnosis of mental illness live in the community, that is, nearly 6 million as compared with under 60,000 who are actually in hospital. But community care services offer a better quality of life than do hospitals, even for people who have been institutionalised over many years. Recent research on the Care in the Community programme sponsored by the

851
Department of Health found there were improvements in social contacts, morale, the use of shops and other local facilities, at a lesser cost than the £30,000 per bed per year expended on a psychiatric bed. Generalisations are always dangerous, but most users of community care services also say that they prefer those services to going back into hospital.
Of course, as hospitals close, and as there is increasing recognition of the needs of the community, the needs for community mental health services are growing. Yet health expenditure continues to be concentrated heavily in hospital services, especially in the acute sector. Eighty-five per cent. of all the combined health authority and social services budgets devoted to mental health is channelled into hospitals; in other words, 85 per cent. of the budgets go on 1 per cent. of the population in need. Since 1979–11 years ago—this has dropped by a mere 3 per cent. from 88 per cent. to 85 per cent. The low priority accorded to community services in general and to mental health in particular means that it is common for mental health budgets to be raided to cover overspending in acute medicine. This is something that the department must tackle.
In the absence of ring-fenced mental health budgets, savings made by closing psychiatric wards can be, and often are, used to bail out acute sector budgets rather than to enhance community mental health services. This is an intolerable situation. If the department does not know about this it is because figures are not kept centrally and they are unable to monitor it.
Community care reforms have consistently taken second place to general NHS reforms since the NHS and Community Care Act was passed last year. This is true of the community care reforms as they affect local authorities. In a leaked letter dated September 1990 it became clear that the former Secretary of State, Kenneth Clarke, had offered to reduce his community care bid to the Treasury from £50 million to £4 million, and that he additionally offered to reduce his personal social services capital bid by £22 million, of which the bulk, £15 million, was to come from the community care capital budget.
More recently, it has become clear that the community care reforms expected of health authorities are also being starved of the necessary resources. Regional health authorities have been informed by the NHS management executive that changes arising from Caring for People—the community care aspects of the reforms—will have to be met from within existing resources. This can be a recipe for inaction. Moreover, the new care programme approach means that from April this year health authorities will have to assess and devise a care programme for people leaving psychiatric hospitals with no new resources, in order to fulfil an absolute commitment. They do not have the resources to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, makes the bid—and it is a bid that I make —that people should always leave hospital with a care plan, and always after assessment. The money has to be provided to enable that to be done.
I argued the case against the mental hospital as a
852
desirable place to live for most people. I once spent a spell in a mental hospital, and I can say that hospital life is a life limited by segregation, by an institutional regime which by its nature cannot accommodate individual wishes and needs. Long-stay psychiatric hospitals are unpopular. A research report entitled I hated it there but I miss the people by Nigel Gouldie found that 70 per cent. of ex-long-stay patients had no wish to return, even though the support they found in the community was in no way sufficient. Later reports have put the proportion much higher. One report put it at 96 per cent. That research was carried out by J. Oliver and K. Wooff and published by the Department of Health.
A glance at some of the headings under which community services in Torbay operate shows that a comprehensive mental health service does not necessarily need a hospital base. Community mental health services, acute care, psychotherapy services, services for people with longer-term problems, services for elderly people with mental health problems, and even the asylum function which is often claimed for psychiatric hospitals, do not necessarily need a hospital. The example given by my noble friend Lord Longford of the Maudsley was a good example of that.
The problem basically concerns money. Part of the resistance to hospital closure is that the closure of any service risks becoming a cut. Cuts have been made in Nottingham's mental health services to meet an acute unit overspend, while Exeter MIND's extensive efforts to find out what happened to the funds released by the closure of Digbeth and Exminster hospitals have shown how difficult it is to keep track of health authority finances. Diverting funds saved through hospital closures away from mental health services is indefensible, but the way to stop this kind of asset stripping is not by ending the closure programme. The Department of Health should not only state that proceeds from hospital sales must be used to develop alternative services, but it should also require authorities to publish what happens to their assets. I shall repeat that. It is absolutely essential that the Department of Health should require health authorities to state that proceeds from hospital sales must be used to develop alternative services, and to make it clear to the department how those savings have been spent.
If community care is to be a reality—in 1986 the Audit Commission suggested it could be a reality—the transfer of resources from institutional to community care services must be made. That is our principal plea to the Government. In my view the reason for service gaps in the community is, at root, that no adequate mechanism has been found to transfer resources from hospital to community.
I tried to do this in a modest way by joint funding. That enabled health authority money to be used by social services departments. I wish I was clear on where we stand on joint funding now. Slowing or halting hospital rundown can only exacerbate the difficulty and the deficiency in this area. Money must be put into community care. The Government must find ways not of moving backwards but of moving

853
forward. I hope the Minister will say something that will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, myself and all those who have taken part in the debate.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I wish to join other speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on a compelling and well informed speech. The noble Lord spoke with humanity and transparent sincerity born of personal experience. I, like other noble Lords, look forward to hearing him speak again and again.
Contrary to popular belief, the development of mental health services is not aimed primarily at closing hospitals. No suggestion has been made this evening to that effect. Rather, health authorities in collaboration with local authority social services departments are seeking to develop locally-based networks of health and social care services for people with a mental illness, including both short-term hospital beds and longer-term provision for rehabilitation and asylum. This is a useful debate on an important and topical issue, and I am glad to be able to reiterate the Government's reaction to some of the problems arising during what is a transitional period when the traditional mental hospitals, including the Victorian asylums, are becoming redundant and are being run down with a view to closure. Our guidance to health authorities makes clear that the run-down of beds and closure of hospitals should not proceed faster than the build-up of alternative local services. Neither should there be any question of patients being discharged from mental hospitals until their needs have been assessed and arrangements have been made with local authorities and other care agencies for those needs to be appropriately met.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Will he tell us when that policy was decided upon? It certainly has not been applied over the years.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure exactly when the policy was decided upon. It will come to final fruition on 1st April. Perhaps that point will become clear as I continue with my remarks. If that is not the case, I shall certainly write to the noble Earl.
There is no simple arithmetical formula for ensuring that the run-down of the old facilities does not outpace the development of the new. It is very much a matter of judgment. We would not claim that, in all parts of the country, and at all times over the past 15 years, the run-down has never outpaced the build-up of new facilities.
I do not dispute the difficulty mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, nor the fact that mental illness continues to lead to great tragedies and sorrow. I cannot claim that those tragedies will cease. They are a fact of life. The noble Baroness, in referring to bed reductions of 25,000, asked whether the community could cope with the situation. I should make the point that the number of beds has reduced gradually at a rate of between 2,000 and 3,000 each year or, put another way, between 10 to 20 beds per health district.
854
Our anxieties in this matter are one of the reasons why we have introduced improved new arrangements that will come into effect in April. At this point perhaps I should clear up a statistic. It has been asked how many mental illness hospitals closed last year and how many are planned for closure. I am informed that one hospital was closed in 1990 and 32 hospitals are planned for closure by 1996, subject to suitable alternative provision being made.
The key initiative is the introduction of the care programme approach. As my noble friend knows, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has asked district health authorities to introduce that approach from 1st April. The essential elements are the establishment of systematic arrangements for assessing the health and social care needs of patients who could potentially be treated in the community. They include the identification of a key worker to keep in close touch with patients and specifically to monitor the delivery of agreed health care and social care.
On the subject of bed closures, my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and other noble Lords sought greater reassurance that the number of beds is not reducing faster than the rate at which mentally ill patients are being discharged into the community, backed by figures on bed closures and their replacement. Such figures are not available until statistics are collated at the end of any one year. That is because the situation is dynamic. Bed numbers shift in an uneven pattern and although the trend has been consistently downwards the rate of fall is uneven from year to year and from region to region.
Nor would such statistics help noble Lords very much. In different areas there are radically different approaches to treatment which affect bed occupancy. Furthermore, a well-publicised decision to reduce bed numbers in any one mental illness hospital could be reversed suddenly and unexpectedly to reflect local needs. Such statistics would therefore tend to be misleading. We believe that it would make no sense for the Government to interfere with that process.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone queried a hospital bed statistic. The figure of 37,350 mental illness hospital beds quoted by my noble friend is not correct. That is no fault of his; I believe that it arises from a misunderstanding. The total number of such beds in 1989–90 was 59,290. The figure of 37,350 relates largely to long-term provision as well as to beds in secure facilities.
For many years now there has been a decline in the number of such beds. That has occurred gradually as community services have developed. Improving services for people suffering from mental illness is one of the Government's priorities. I should like to give an illustration using figures. In this country there may be as many as 6 million people suffering from mental illness of one kind or another. The scale of the problem was borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, in his speech. Of those 6 million some 2¼ million people may be described as seriously mentally

855
ill. Of those 2¼ million seriously mentally ill people there will at any one time be only 60,000 in hospital, of whom more than half will be long-stay patients.
Of the approximately £1.5 billion of health service budget devoted to mental illness, one half is spent on those 60,000 patients. The Government's policy is to change that through the care programme, monitoring carefully as the programme proceeds. It remains to be seen what precise effect that will have on resources and whether or not the new policy will give rise to a need for new additional funding.
We accept that there have been cases in which patients with mental illness have been discharged from hospital without adequate arrangements having been made for their continuing health and social care. An illustration has been given tonight in your Lordships' House. We are therefore requiring all health authorities to introduce from 1st April more systematic arrangements for the care programme approach to ensure that no one is discharged from psychiatric hospital unless his or her continuing health and social care needs can be met.
Health authorities will need to ensure that any further reduction in hospital beds does not outpace developments in community services. For that reason we have introduced a completely new specific revenue grant to local authorities of £21 million next year towards new services, at a total cost of £30 million. That will make a significant difference to the level of local authority expenditure on services for people with mental illness. It is impossible to give the precise figure for the current level of such expenditure but the highest estimate is around £200 million. The new grant would allow 15 per cent. real growth on that figure and contribute significantly to meeting the costs of local authority services for mentally ill people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that many local authorities cannot find the 30 per cent. Other noble Lords also made that point. I dispute that statement. The latest information is that 105 out of 107 authorities will take up the grant. One authority —Salford—appears to have decided not to take it up; we wait to hear from the other one, which is Bromley. Early indications are that there will be a take-up of well over 90 per cent.
The centrally funded portion of mental illness specific grant is 70 per cent., as it is for personal social services specific grants. The 30 per cent. which local authorities must find is taken into account in their RSG settlement and to that extent is provided for from central government. If the specific grant were to be funded centrally at a rate of 100 per cent., it might be viewed as a disincentive to local authorities to make the most efficient use of the funds available.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Would he accept that the final determinant cannot be made until it is known which local authorities will be charge capped? If they are charge capped they may have to revise the decision taken and an early priority might be taking up their share of the specific grant for mental health.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am not aware, my Lords, of anyone having provisionally made that bid and therefore I assume that a number of authorities which have already got into the bid will be charge capped. But I understand what the noble Lord says.
To help local authorities finance the capital elements of the new social care services we are offering supplementary credit approvals of £10 million in 1991–92. Clearly, finance from mental hospital sites provides valuable capital for replacement facilities such as hospital hostels but these facilities are needed before hospitals can be vacated and therefore have to compete for resources with other priorities within capital programmes.
To tackle that problem we introduced the capital loans fund at the beginning of the financial year 1990–91 to provide bridging finance to allow health authorities to develop community services in advance of closing old mental illness and mental handicap hospitals. Bids were invited from all health authorities for payments from that fund. Repayments of the loans would be expected within a few years to enable the fund to continue as a rolling programme. We received over 140 bids. They were all carefully assessed to ensure that they were consistent with the aims of the fund and that the authorities had clear plans to repay the loans so that the process could be repeated somewhere else. In July 1990 we announced that £30 million was being allocated to 10 schemes over the next three years. Additional schemes will be adopted as the fund increases over the three-year period to make up a £50 million rolling programme, the fund being replenished by repayments from schemes in progress.
The development of mental illness services, including the shift to locally based services, is a regular feature of the annual accountability review meetings which Ministers and the NHS Management Executive hold with each regional health authority. The department advises on and monitors the development of services by local authorities through the work of its Social Services Inspectorate. Information is also obtained through the health advisory service, which regularly produces reports on services for mentally ill people.
The Department of Health is asking regional health authorities to confirm by the end of April 1991 that all district health authorities have introduced the care programme approach. The department will commission research to help evaluate its effectiveness. I understand that that will not bring entire satisfaction to my noble friend Lord Mottistone but we believe that we have the basis of serious monitoring. I know that my right honourable friend has every intention of ensuring that this vital element of government policy is made to work.
I turn to a couple of questions asked in the course of the debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, specifically asked what savings arose from the closure of hospitals. The answer is that there have been no savings. Put like that, I do not think that one could make sense of savings, in that no money has been realised and gone anywhere else. I speak nationally. It

857
may be that there has been a gain to one individual authority through sales. The gross spending on hospitals and community health services for the mentally ill grew by 34 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1988–89 to a total of £1.4 million. Expenditure by local authorities on mental illness services increased by 80 per cent. in the same period to £63 million.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that he felt that community care might be disastrous. I am not sure whether he still thinks it disastrous.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I said it the last time I spoke and repeated it—it is a disastrous word. But as I said, we are stuck with it. I do not want to continue to argue about the word. We have more important things to consider.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl. However, there is a growing consensus that virtually all the professionals, patients and carers prefer that approach to the previous one.
My noble friend Lady Cox spoke of training social workers. She raised a very fair anxiety. Unfortunately I am not in a position to give a response this evening, but either my noble friend Lady Hooper or I will write to her.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will it be possible for my noble friend to send me a copy of the letter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes indeed.
Since I am not wholly familiar with the department, I became confused with some of the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I shall read very
858
carefully what he said and respond. I am glad that he mentioned Torbay. It gives me a chance to pay tribute to that authority and to what it is doing.
The noble Lord also asked whether authorities would be required to return the proceeds from the disposal of hospitals to community care and account for those proceeds. Again I am not in a position to give a definitive answer. However, he raises an important point. I should like to draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend. Again he will receive a full response.
We believe that these initiatives will make both a significant contribution to improving the resources available specifically for mentally ill people and help to ensure that the reduction and closure of the old hospitals does not outpace the development of newer forms of service. We have asked regional health authorities to monitor the introduction of the care programme approach and we shall be looking to them to oversee the development of the new forms of service as part of their overall monitoring role. As a backstop we have made it clear that we shall not approve the closure of any mental hospitals unless it can be demonstrated that suitable alternative services have been developed. I hope that our approach will reassure all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which he so ably represents.

Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  IRAQI NUCLEAR FACILITIES: IAEA INSPECTION
  IRAQI NUCLEAR FACILITIES: IAEA INSPECTION
  IRAQ: UNICEF/WHO MEDICAL SUPPLIES SHIPMENT
  IRAQ: UNICEF/WHO MEDICAL SUPPLIES SHIPMENT
  WALES: DERELICT LAND PROGRAMME
  WALES: DERELICT LAND PROGRAMME
  HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
  SERVICEMEN IN THE GULF: RELIEF FROM COMMUNITY CHARGE
  SERVICEMEN IN THE GULF: RELIEF FROM COMMUNITY CHARGE
  CHRIST CHURCH, DONCASTER
  CHRIST CHURCH, DONCASTER
  HOUSING ACT 1988: CASH INCENTIVE SCHEMES
  HOUSING ACT 1988: CASH INCENTIVE SCHEMES